[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4346-S4381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus/Grassley amendment No. 3401, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized to offer an amendment.


                Amendment No. 3416 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3416 to amendment No. 3401.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To include additional criteria for reviewing the impact of 
  trade agreements on employment in the United States, and for other 
                               purposes)

       Section 2102(c) is amended by striking paragraph (5) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) review the impact of future trade agreements on 
     United States employment, modeled after Executive Order 
     13141, taking into account the impact on job security, the 
     level of compensation of new jobs and existing jobs, the 
     displacement of employment, and the regional distribution of 
     employment, utilizing experience from previous trade 
     agreements and alternative models of employment analysis, 
     report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on 
     such review, and make that report available to the public;''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer to the 
fast-track portion of the substitute, will enable us to get a better 
and more accurate assessment of the true impact of trade agreements as 
they affect the job security of America's working families. In 
particular, what this amendment does is clarify the scope of the labor 
impact assessment called for in the underlying fast-track bill. What we 
say is that the full assessment should be an assessment on the impact 
of job security, the level of compensation of new jobs and existing 
jobs, the displacement of employees, and the regional distribution of 
employment.
  Let me explain each of these one by one. First, the impact of the 
trade agreement. With this important impact statement being made 
available to Members of Congress, to the Finance Committee, to the Ways 
and Means Committee, and, more importantly, I would argue, to the 
public, it has an impact on job security. What we now know, on the 
basis of some very good work by economists, is that when one has a 
trade agreement and a company leaves, it is not only a question of 
whether or not there are now fewer jobs by definition in our own 
country; it is also a question of the overall impact trade deficits 
have on our economic performance in our country and what kinds of jobs 
are generated.
  It is also true that when companies end up leaving and saying, 
listen, we are going to go to Juarez, or Taiwan, or wherever, because 
we can pay 50 cents an hour, or we can have children we can employ for 
18 or 19 hours a day with pretty horrible child labor conditions, what 
also happens is that workers in our country are put in a really weak 
position vis-a-vis bargaining so that quite often they then settle for 
lower wages, less by way of health care coverage, and all the rest, 
because companies say, if they demand this, we are leaving.
  What this amendment says is let us have really a good economic impact 
analysis and let us look also at the impact of these trade agreements 
on not only job security, which in and of itself is really important, 
but also the level of compensation, and then the whole question of 
displacement of employment and regional distribution. It could be and 
may be that Senators want to make an argument that overall these trade 
agreements benefit our economy in the aggregate and benefit our Nation 
as a whole.
  I think that is always open for debate, and people of good faith can 
reach different conclusions about it, but what we also need to 
understand is what regions of the country are most devastated, what 
sectors of the economy are most devastated, and what happens to those 
industrial workers, be it textile workers in the South, be it 
steelworkers, be it taconite workers on the Iron Range of Minnesota.
  What this amendment does is clarify. It also calls for an examination 
of previous trade agreements and says we ought to take into account a 
variety of different economic models: Let us look at NAFTA as it would 
affect future trade agreements, let us look at the different kinds of 
economic models we can employ to do the most rigorous assessment; and 
then, after we do these assessments, let us make sure this is made 
available to the public.
  What we do not want is a whitewash analysis. What we do want is a 
real analysis so we can know what kind of impacts to expect from 
particular trade agreements.
  I think it is actually an amendment that adds to the strength of the 
bill. My colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, certainly 
have tried to move in this direction, and I appreciate their work. This 
builds on their work.

  I would quote again the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, who said 
ignorance is never random. My translation of that is: We do not know 
what we do not want to know.
  All this amendment says is let us do a rigorous analysis of what the 
impact of these trade agreements is on the lives of many families we 
represent.
  There can be no doubt about some of the adverse effects of so-called 
globalization and our trade relationships on jobs and job security in 
our country. In my home State of Minnesota, unfortunately, examples 
abound. The impact of the steel imports on the Range--other Senators 
from steel States, Democrats and Republicans, can present their own 
data--but as I look at the sort of import surge of semifinished slab 
steel and its impact on the taconite industry, all I have to do is look 
at 1,400 LTV workers now out of work.
  In greater Minnesota, or in rural America, when someone has a job 
that pays $50,000 to $60,000 a year, with good health care benefits, it 
is not at all clear what happens to those families. Those jobs are hard 
to find. They are hard to find outside metro areas.
  The most poignant thing of all is that not only have these workers 
lost their jobs but now, depending upon their seniority, after 6 
months, a year, they are losing their health care benefits as well.
  Tomorrow there will be an amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Mikulski, and myself, and what is especially poignant about 
this is that these retirees who have worked hard all their lives now 
find, as these companies declare bankruptcy, that these companies walk 
away from retiree health care benefits. They are terrified about what 
they will do now.

  We are very hopeful we will get strong support on the Senate floor 
tomorrow for an amendment that at least will provide a 1-year bridge at 
minimal cost toward maintaining coverage for the retirees. Then, of 
course, we have to come to terms with what we

[[Page S4347]]

intend to do in the long run in the future for the retirees and for the 
steel industry. More about that amendment tomorrow.
  Potlach shut down in Minnesota. Senator Dayton and I met with the 
workers in the Brainerd area. It is never easy when grown men and women 
have tears in their eyes. These were good-paying jobs, hard-working 
people. I talked to the CEO of Potlach. He told me outright, Senator 
Wellstone, we can compete with any company in the United States of 
America but it is the trade policy that has simply done us in. We have 
no other choice. The results have been devastating for the workers.
  I spoke yesterday to machinists and aerospace workers. They don't 
understand why so many jobs are farmed out. Northwest Airlines in our 
State is an example. The jobs are farmed out to repair shops in other 
developing countries that do not have to live up to the same standards 
as the repair shops in our country. We may want to have high standards 
for all the repair shops. I may have an amendment on this bill that 
speaks to the specific question of safety for airline passengers.
  We have heard of the difficulties from workers all across our 
country: auto workers, textile workers, steelworkers. Looking at NAFTA, 
there is a direct link between the NAFTA trade agreement and trade 
adjustment assistance. I have three pages of companies and workers who 
have lost their jobs in the State of Minnesota. It is quite 
unbelievable. For the families, it is devastating. There have been all 
sorts of promises made about the great benefits that would flow from 
NAFTA and from granting permanent trade relations with China. They have 
not panned out. As I mentioned before, the studies on NAFTA have 
estimated we have lost about 766,000 actual and potential U.S. jobs 
between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the trade deficit 
with Mexico and Canada.
  Canada increased from $17 billion to $53 billion; our trade deficit 
with Mexico doubled from $14.5 billion to $30 billion. I congratulate 
my colleague from Minnesota for his amendment which said we are not 
going to give up our right to review trade remedy legislation which is 
so important to making sure that working families in our country are 
not put in an awful situation when other countries engage in illegal 
trade practices and we begin to lose our jobs. That amendment that 
Senator Dayton and Senator Craig passed yesterday was an extremely 
important amendment.
  Make no mistake, the job losses are real. These are workers who have 
actually been certified as eligible for trade adjustment assistance 
under NAFTA. That means there is an official finding regarding these 
workers in the State of Minnesota, these three pages of lists of 
workers. There was an official finding that they lost their jobs 
because of trade covered under the NAFTA agreement.
  A few examples: Cummins, located in St. Peter, MN, which made power 
supplies, estimates the loss of jobs at 350 because of NAFTA imports. 
That is a lot of jobs for the town of St. Peter, MN.
  Hampshire Designers, located in La Crescent and Winona, MN, knit 
sweaters. The estimated loss is 150 jobs because the plant moved to 
Mexico.

  Hearth Technologies located in Savage, MN, produced prefab 
fireplaces. The estimated loss of jobs is 160 because the operation 
moved to Canada.
  There is an excellent groundbreaking study by Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner 
at Cornell University, prepared for the U.S. China Security Review 
Commission and the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission which took a 
detailed look at the impact of United States-China trade relations on 
workers, wages, and employment in the United States. That is what this 
amendment says. We want that analysis on these trade agreements, and we 
want it made public before a final agreement is signed.
  This was a pilot media tracking study that Dr. Bronfenbrenner did at 
Cornell, an indepth analysis of production shifts out of the United 
States since the enactment of the permanent normal trade relations 
legislation.
  Frankly, colleagues, it is a sad state of affairs and exemplifies the 
need for this amendment that this pilot study was even necessary. As 
the authors point out, there is no government data in this area. I want 
to make sure we have the data so we can be responsible policymakers. 
Indeed, the database developed in this pilot is the only national 
database on production shifts out of the United States.
  Let me give colleagues a feel for some of the conclusions. In the few 
months, between October 1, 2000, after enactment of PNTR legislation, 
and April 20, 2001, more than 80 corporations between October and April 
announced their intentions to shift production to China. With the 
number of announced production shifts increasing each month, from 2 per 
month in October to November to 19 per month by April, the estimated 
number of jobs lost through these production shifts to China was as 
high as 34,500. Unfortunately, because this data is not regularly 
tracked, and hence the need for the amendment, we can only speculate 
the trend has worsened.
  The study also showed that the production shifts out of the United 
States into China are highly concentrated in certain industries. Let me 
give some examples of the electronics and electrical equipment, 
chemicals and petroleum products, household goods--toys, textiles, 
plastics, sporting goods, wood, and paper products. The U.S. companies 
are shutting down and moving to China and other countries. These tend 
to be the large, profitable, well-established companies, primarily 
subsidiaries of publicly held U.S.-based multinationals: Mattel, 
International Paper, General Electric, Motorola, Rubbermaid. These 
multinationals are not shifting production to China to serve a Chinese 
market. Their goal is to still serve the United States and a global 
market.
  Perhaps even more important, of the jobs moving to China, 
increasingly, they are the jobs in high-paying industries, for example, 
producing goods such as bicycles, furniture, motors, compressors, fiber 
optics, injection molding, and computer components.
  I hope all Senators read a front page story yesterday in the 
Washington Post about a 20-year-old woman in China who lived in the 
most rural part of China. She came to one of the industrial cities to 
work for one of the subsidiaries producing toys. She was working many 
days in a row, day after day after day, 18, 19 hours a day, well until 
10, 11, 12 o'clock at night, from early in the morning. She felt ill 
and was not allowed a break. She became sick, threw up blood, and died. 
There are working conditions like this all over the world--deplorable 
child labor conditions, with violations of people's human rights, trade 
agreements with governments that systematically torture their citizens. 
And we don't consider any of this?
  That is one of the reasons I am sorry to say these companies must 
leave the United States of America. They say to our wage earners: 
Listen, you who want to make a living wage and you want to have health 
care benefits and you want to be able to support your family, we don't 
need to pay attention to you any longer. We will go to China. We will 
go to other countries. We will go to countries where if people try to 
organize and bargain collectively and join a union, they will find 
themselves tortured or find themselves in prison. It happens all the 
time. Or we will go to countries where there are no labor standards and 
as a result, we lose these jobs. Our families are the ones who pay the 
price. Then, if other nations should say we want to have some child 
labor standards, these companies say: We will not go to your nation. We 
will go someplace where we don't have to deal with any of that.

  Then, what makes me most angry is that working families, working 
people in the United States of America who dare to raise the question 
as to whether or not these trade agreements or this fast-track bill is 
exactly in their interest or their children's interests, are called 
protectionists.
  Then the argument is made: You terrible labor unions. You don't care 
about the poor in these other nations. This helps them obtain 
employment.
  I will tell you something. I have been to some of these trade 
conferences, and I have never seen any of the poor represented by these 
countries. I see their trade ministers. I never see the poor there.
  What we have going on here is a race to the bottom. It is time we 
think about this new international economy and how we can make sure 
this new

[[Page S4348]]

international economy doesn't just work for multinationals but works 
for working people or works for the environment or works for human 
rights.
  Let me conclude the study's conclusion.

       The employment effects of these production shifts go well 
     beyond the individual workers whose jobs were lost. Each time 
     another company shuts down operations and moves work to 
     China, Mexico, or any other country, it has a ripple effect 
     on the wages of every other worker in that industry and that 
     community, through lowering wage demands, restraining union 
     organizing and bargaining power, reducing the tax base, and 
     reducing or eliminating hundreds of jobs in the related 
     contracting, transportation, wholesale trade, professional, 
     and service-sector employment in companies and businesses.

  Finally, the study notes that the employment effects of United 
States-China trade relations are not felt in the United States alone. 
Data points to massive shifts of employment around the world. As Dr. 
Bronfenbrenner's study notes:

       Contrary to the promise of rising wages and living 
     standards that free trade and global economic integration 
     were supposed to provide, in many countries these global 
     production shifts have led to decreases in employment, 
     stagnating wages, and increasing income inequality.

  These conclusions were also echoed in a report presented by the U.S. 
Business and Industry Council Education Fund, ``Exporting Jobs: When 
Trade Agreements Are Really Investment Agreements.''
  What this study points to is to a trend of low-income countries such 
as Mexico and China becoming sources of high-tech products for the 
United States. Import levels increasingly have swamped exports which 
are increasingly concentrated in the high-value industries, with the 
result that we even lose more.
  Here is the problem. It is not just that we are losing low-value 
products produced by low-wage workers, we are now losing the higher-
value products produced by skilled labor that goes to other countries 
where these companies pay much less, do not have to abide by any 
standards dealing with labor, don't have to abide by any human rights 
standards, don't have to abide by any democracy standards, don't have 
to abide by any environmental standards.
  What this says is let's take a close look. We need to understand 
exactly how this affects the people we represent.
  A USBIC report, and numerous studies, including one published by the 
Federal Reserve Board of New York, made clear that most Chinese imports 
consist of imports that are turned into exports. Since 1997, our trade 
deficit with China has mushroomed from $49.7 billion to $83 billion. 
Contrary to the promise of how this was supposed to help so many 
working families in our country, this is great for the multinational 
companies involved, but it does not help most of our small businesses, 
and it doesn't help most of our workers.
  Make no mistake, this amendment is not about being opposed to trade 
agreements. This is not about protectionism. I do not have the 
slightest interest in building walls at our borders or keeping out 
goods and services, nor do I fear fair competition from workers and 
companies operating in other countries. I am not afraid of our 
neighbors. I do not fear other countries, nor do I fear other peoples. 
I favor open trade, and I believe the President should negotiate trade 
agreements which lead generally to more open markets here and abroad.
  I am aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of Minnesota and 
the economy of our country. In Minnesota, we have an extremely 
internationally minded community of corporations, small businesses, 
working people, and farmers. Open trade can contribute significantly to 
expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it can reward innovation and 
productivity. Negotiated properly, trade agreements can bring all these 
benefits to trading partners in a fair way.
  The question is, How do American values around protecting labor 
rights, the environment, food safety, and consumer protections figure 
into our trade agreements? And what are the true costs of not 
respecting these values?
  The Bush administration believes commercial property rights are 
primary in trade agreements but that labor and environmental and human 
rights are secondary. I think this is wrong. I think--and I think most 
Americans agree with me--that fundamental standard of living and 
quality of life issues are exactly what trade policy should be about.
  Trade agreements that do not respect the universality of these issues 
or these values undermine human dignity around the world, and they hurt 
American workers in the process. If we fail to document the extent of 
the impact of American workers and American jobs, then we have done a 
real disservice to our own Nation.
  So before we enter into additional trade agreements, we simply have 
to have better data and a more sophisticated analysis of the full 
employment impacts of these trade agreements: Loss of jobs but also 
wage levels, ability to organize, impact on regions in-country, impact 
on sectors of the economy. We need to know the impact of the agreement 
on job security, level of compensation of new and existing jobs, 
displacement of employment, and the regional distribution of 
employment. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  It is a pretty simple amendment. Frankly, I would be surprised if my 
colleagues did not accept it, although I am pleased to debate it as 
well.
  This is a labor impact amendment. I hope there will be strong support 
for it.
  I also say to Senators while I am out on the floor--and I know there 
are other Senators who want to speak--that this is the first amendment 
I have which is to improve the labor assessment impacts of trade 
agreements. Both my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, 
start down this direction. This is just a fuller analysis. We ought to 
know the impact on job security. We ought to know the impact on the 
level of compensation of jobs. We ought to know what the displacement 
effects of unemployment are. We ought to know what the regional 
distribution of employment will be. And we ought to look at prior trade 
agreements and come up with the best models of assessment. That is what 
I am saying. We need to be honest and rigorous in our analysis.

  I also will have another amendment which will call upon us to assure 
the consideration of democracy and human rights in trade agreements. 
Believe me, I think it is vitally important that fast-track trade 
negotiating authority for any trade agreement must have a specific 
democracy and human rights clause.
  Let me just mention one other amendment. The other amendment I will 
be introducing is an amendment regarding the contracting for Federal 
services overseas. What this amendment with Senator Feingold says is 
that right now, State authorities--too many--use TANF to administer 
electronic benefits programs. Right now what they are doing is they are 
doing business with companies that contract this abroad.
  It is kind of an irony. This is the welfare reform. Actually, some of 
these mothers could take these jobs. So it seems to me, the TANF money 
itself should not be used to support companies that are subcontracting 
with companies that then basically do all the electronic work, so if 
you are a welfare mother and you are calling and trying to find out 
where you are, where there is job training, basically you are talking 
to somebody in India. It strikes me that this is a bitter irony, 
especially when some of the jobs could actually be available for these 
mothers and other families.

  So this amendment would prohibit the use of any part of a TANF grant 
to enter into a contract with an entity that employs workers located 
outside the United States to carry out the activities under the 
contract. I think that would be an interesting debate. I hope to have 
support for it.
  I want to say, while my colleagues are out on the floor, the heart 
and soul amendment is the one--they are all important--that deals with 
the steelworkers and a small amount of money. I know we have a Joint 
Tax Committee estimate where we can help at least with a 1-year bridge 
for the retiree health care benefits. This will be with Senators 
Rockefeller, Mikulski, and I know other Senators joining in as well.
  I want to, before relinquishing my right to the floor, speak on the 
democracy and human rights amendment, which my guess is will be 
somewhat controversial. The reason for this is--

[[Page S4349]]

just look at this, just listen to this. This is from our own ``State 
Department Country Reports on Human Rights for 2001.''
  For China:

       Police and other elements of the security apparatus employ 
     torture and degrading treatment in dealing with some 
     detainees and prisoners.

  This is the State Department report, not my report:

       Senior officials acknowledge that torture and coerced 
     confessions are chronic problems.
       Former detainees and the press reported credibly that 
     officials used electric shocks, prolonged periods of solitary 
     confinement.

  And the list goes on and on.
  Russia--I know we are establishing better relations with Russia--but 
for Russia:

       There are credible reports that some law enforcement 
     officials used torture regularly to coerce confessions from 
     suspects, and that the government does not hold most 
     officials accountable.
       Torture usually takes one of four forms: beatings with 
     fists, batons, or other object; asphyxiation using gas masks 
     or bags--sometimes filled with mace--electric shocks; or 
     suspension of body parts.

  Colombia: According to the ``Amnesty International Annual Report for 
2001'':

       More than 4,000 people were victims of political killings, 
     over 300 ``disappeared'' and an estimated 300,000 people were 
     internally displaced.

  And also, again, there are too many connections between military and 
paramilitary, which I think will be part of the debate on Colombia.
  Labor rights, and Mexico:

       Independent trade unions faced difficulties in organizing 
     during the year. . . . there are frequent abuses in the 
     country's 4,000 or so maquiladoras. Since NAFTA came into 
     force, some 3,000 assembly-for-export companies have set up 
     business in Tijuana. According to a study by Infolatina, over 
     1.3 million workers are paid less than $6 a day to work in 
     often deplorable conditions. . . .

  These are our own Government reports. This one was actually the 
``International Confederation of Trade Unions Annual Survey of 
Violations of Trade Union Rights for 2001.''
  The ``2002 International Labor Organization (ILO) Global Report on 
Child Labor'' has estimated that over 8 million children worldwide are 
trapped in the unconditional worst forms of child labor--which are 
internationally defined as slavery, trafficking, debt bondage, and 
other forms of forced labor.

  And 180 million children aged 5 to 17--or 73 percent of all child 
laborers--are now believed to be engaged in the worst forms of child 
labor, comprising hazardous work and the unconditional worst forms of 
child labor.
  From the April 2002 Human Rights Report titled, ``Tainted Harvest: 
Child Labor and Obstacles to Organizing on Ecuador's Banana 
Plantations'':

       Child workers explained that they were exposed to toxic 
     chemicals, handling insecticide-treated plastics, working 
     under fungicide-spraying airplanes in the fields, and 
     directly applying post-harvest pesticides in packing plants.

  You name it. I could go on and on.
  There was a Washington Post piece, which I mentioned earlier: 
``Worked Till they Drop: Few Protections for China's New Laborers.''
  Again, the young woman I talked about was 19:

       Lying on her bed that night, staring at the bunk above her, 
     the slight 19-year-old complained she felt worn out, her 
     roommates recalled. Finally the lights went out. Her 
     roommates had already fallen asleep when Li started coughing 
     up blood. They found her in the bathroom a few hours later, 
     curled up on the floor, moaning softly in the dark, bleeding 
     from her nose and mouth. Someone called an ambulance, but she 
     died before it arrived.

  Colleagues, I just have to tell you, it is like we are being told 
that we should lead, but we should lead on the basis of our own values.
  On the first amendment, we will see what my colleagues do. I want to 
have a rigorous analysis of what the impact of these trade agreements 
will be on our working families. I do not want anything whitewashed. I 
want to know what the effect will be in the south. I want to know what 
the effect will be for textile and steelworkers. And I want to know 
what the effect will be on not only jobs lost but wages and the right 
to organize--you name it. That is what this first amendment is about.
  With the second amendment, I want to have a democracy, human rights 
clause. I think we should at least say the countries that we are 
signing these trade agreements with, will at least agree to make an 
effort. I have pretty reasonable language to deal with human rights. 
There are probably 70 governments in the world that systematically 
practice torture. Do we care? Can't we at least have some language that 
says countries have to show they are making an effort?
  Why would we oppose that? Shouldn't we do something about these 
deplorable child labor conditions? Are we just going to put this 
unpleasant reality into parenthesis? I don't believe so.
  I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled Russia, born in the 
Ukraine. I believe in human rights. I think my colleagues do. And the 
amendment I am going to bring to the floor later is very reasonable. It 
just says let's at least have a clause where there has to be some 
effort on the part of these countries to make a commitment to moving 
forward on this democracy and human rights agenda.
  And then, I just have to say, the TANF amendment is a no-brainer. 
With all due respect, why should our Government money, why should our 
TANF money--States are hard pressed right now--why should we see that 
subcontracted out to companies that are actually doing the work in 
regard to welfare reform located in other nations--India or wherever. I 
am not picking on India. I am just saying, it is not appropriate to use 
TANF money to do that when we are supposed to try to enable welfare 
mothers to do some work. And they could be doing the work. It does not 
make a bit of sense.

  Finally, we will be out here tomorrow with this steel amendment, 
which is so important. It is the right thing to do. It has a reasonable 
cost. It will be a great statement for the Senate to make, Democrats 
and Republicans alike: a 1-year bridge on legacy costs. Retirees have 
worked hard all their lives. Companies now go bankrupt and walk away 
from retiree health care benefits.
  This is about compassion. This is about basically our being willing 
to help. Boy, I will tell you what. For the Iron Range in Minnesota, 
nothing could be more important. It is like that is why you are here. 
It is why you are here because everybody has this experience. You know 
people are frightened, and you know people really don't know what they 
are going to do. They don't know what they are going to do, and they 
ask you to help. That is what this is about. And it certainly should be 
part of the trade adjustment assistance package. It is a good package.
  I give my colleagues a lot of credit for working hard and coming up 
with a bipartisan package.
  Mr. President, there are other Senators in the Chamber. I will stay 
here if there is debate on this amendment that basically calls for, 
really, as I say, a rigorous labor impact clause to this bill. But I 
will wait to hear from my colleagues. I am hoping there will be strong 
support because it just says let's know what we need to know. Let's 
make sure that information is public.
  Mr. President, I wait to hear from my colleague from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to debate the Senator 
from Minnesota, but I am going to raise some questions he may want to 
answer.
  First of all, our bill, the bipartisan trade promotion bill that is 
before us, does provide for a study on the impact of trade on the 
economy and jobs and things of that nature. So, quite obviously, we are 
not opposed to studies that are within the bill.
  The Senator from Minnesota wants to be a little more specific, give 
direction to the study. And I suppose those directions and those 
studies are something that I will want to have him answer some 
questions about what his intent is.
  I also surmise that the Senator from Minnesota probably will not vote 
for trade promotion authority. That doesn't make his efforts to amend 
the bill illegitimate in any way, but there are a lot of amendments 
that could be adopted that probably will not get the support, in the 
final analysis, of the Senator from Minnesota.
  One of the things we need to remember is that trade is all about 
jobs. For instance, the whole movement of the last seven decades 
started with the bad economic impact of protectionism all over the 
world. It started in the United

[[Page S4350]]

States with the Smoot-Hawley Act. I don't know that it was intended to 
be a bad piece of legislation. Probably the people who got it passed 
thought they were doing the right thing for the country. It bred 
protectionism all over the world.
  Everybody knows what happened in the 1930s, the tremendous movement 
toward protectionism. World trade shut down and, consequently, the 
world economy shut down. The Great Depression was a worldwide 
depression. It wasn't long afterward, a new President came in, Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt, and a new Congress, and they had a rude awakening to 
the bad impact of protectionism.
  We have heard Senators give the history, so I will not go into it. 
Starting in the mid-1930s, with the Trade Reciprocity Act that passed 
Congress and, under the President's authority, the ability to reduce 
tariffs when it was reciprocally done by other countries, it was a 
pattern from the mid-1930s until the present setup of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that went into effect in 1947, followed 
by the World Trade Organization in 1994. But that whole regime that 
started in 1947 was building on what started in the mid-1930s with 
trade reciprocity to bring down tariff and nontariff trade barriers to 
enhance the world economy and to create jobs.
  Trade is all about jobs. I keep referring to what President Clinton 
said about the expansion of jobs in his 8 years as President: 22 
million jobs. He said one-third of them came because of foreign trade. 
The reason he could say that is he negotiated the final agreements on 
the North American Free Trade Agreement and on the Uruguay Round of 
GATT. So 22 million jobs, one-third, approximately 7 million jobs--7 
million jobs--President Clinton said, were created as a result of 
trade.
  I hope everybody understands that there are leaders in the Democratic 
Party and leaders in the Republican Party who think trade is good for 
America and it creates jobs. They are good-paying jobs that pay 15 
percent above the national average; some people would say somewhere 
between 13 percent and 19 percent above the national average. We are 
not talking about flipping hamburgers at McDonald's; we are talking 
about good jobs.
  You have to put this debate in the context of what the history of the 
world economy has been in the last 70 years and what has happened in 
the United States to create jobs as well. In my State of Iowa, at John 
Deere, one out of every five jobs on the assembly line is related to 
trade. At 3M Company, Knoxville, IA, 40 percent is related to trade. I 
could go on and on. It is probably more true in Minnesota than my State 
of Iowa, jobs related to trade.
  The Senator's amendment doesn't undo anything we have in the bill. He 
asks for a study. There is nothing wrong with intellectually honest 
approaches to reviewing public policy. Senator Baucus and I believe 
that is important. We have a study in our bill.

  With that background, I would like to raise some questions with the 
Senator that he might want to answer or might not want to answer. As I 
understand it, the amendment would replace language in our bill which 
requires the President to review the impact of future trade agreements 
on U.S. employment and report to the Ways and Means Committee and to 
the Senate Finance Committee on these reviews.
  The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota expands upon this report, 
requiring the President to take into account the impact on job 
security, the level of compensation of new jobs and existing jobs, the 
displacement of employment, and the regional distribution of employment 
in conducting this review. The amendment requires the President to 
utilize experience from previous international trade agreements and to 
use, in the words of the amendment, ``alternative models of employment 
analysis.''
  My question on that point would be: How is the President, in 
conducting the report, going to take into account the impact on job 
security? How is he going to take into account the level of 
compensation of new jobs and existing jobs?
  Obviously, there is some data for that, as I indicated by the 15 
percent figure I used that trade-related jobs pay above the national 
average. But does the Senator from Minnesota want to take more than 
those things into account that are already out there? Whatever the 
Senator from Minnesota wants the President to take into account, is 
that data available? What is the relevance of requiring the President 
to take into account the regional distribution of employment? Is 
providing jobs in one part of the country more important than jobs in 
another part of the country, if the overall economic wealth of our 
Nation is enhanced?
  When President Clinton said one-third of the jobs created in the 8 
years of his Presidency were related to trade, he didn't say it 
benefited Massachusetts much more than California, or much more 
Minnesota than it did the southern part of the United States. We are a 
national economy.
  I might also ask the Senator to explain, what are alternative models 
of employment analysis? In other words, how do his alternative models 
of employment analysis differ from what might be the present models of 
employment analysis or maybe what you might call other models that are 
in use, or maybe there is a standard model out there? And have these 
alternative models of employment analysis been used by other nations, 
or in any venue, for that matter, to evaluate trade agreements? I think 
it is important that we know how they have been used. The Senator would 
want answers to these questions to be part of the Record in case his 
amendment is adopted so that we can have a basis for the direction of 
the study. But we cannot be opposed to intellectually honest approaches 
to getting information and analyzing the policies we make. But we want 
to make sure there is a basis for producing the information that the 
Senator from Minnesota wants.

  I am going to stop there. I have raised some questions about it 
without taking a position for or against the amendment at this 
particular point.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will respond to my good friend from 
Iowa in a couple different ways. First of all--and I think he came 
around to this--well, I don't know what his overall position is, but I 
think this amendment is not about an overall discussion about trade 
policy. As my colleague said, it is all about jobs. What this amendment 
says is, that is right; it is all about jobs. Let's have a thorough 
analysis. Let's have a thorough analysis of the impact of these trade 
agreements on jobs.
  We can debate for a long time, I say to my colleague from Iowa, about 
trade policy. I am pleased to do so. I do not want to take a lot of 
time away from other Senators, and I want to answer the specific 
questions. I do want to say one thing, though. I do not want my good 
friend from Iowa to corner me as a sort of protectionist.
  I do not view this debate as being between people who are for or 
against free trade or protection. I view this as a debate between 
people who are saying, look, we have this new international economy and 
let's go forward with it, and the market will take care of everything; 
there do not have to be any rules with it, versus those of us who say, 
yes, we have this international economy, we are all for trade, let's 
make sure we harness this in such a way that there are some rules 
ensuring these agreements work not just for the multinational 
corporations but for our workers and for the environment and human 
rights and independent producers.
  That is all this debate is about. Frankly, if I were to look at this 
with a sense of history, I do not think this is a lot different than 
the beginning of the 1900s. What happened in the beginning of our 
Nation 100 years ago is that the economy went from more local and 
agrarian to national and industrial, and as these economic changes took 
place, some of these economic changes were wrenching changes. It gave 
rise to very interesting politics as to what happened during that 
period of time. This was the populist-progressive politics. This was 
Teddy Roosevelt's time. This was the Farmers Alliance. This was the 
labor unions building.
  What happened? We had demands for an 8-hour day. We had antitrust 
action, the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, women demanded the right 
to vote, and progressives said Senators should be directly elected, and 
so on and so forth. And you know what. Actually, as hard

[[Page S4351]]

as those struggles were, the media was opposed to all those groups and 
organizations and people who felt that, in a democracy, you demand what 
you have courage to demand. They did not have the support of the media. 
The Pinkertons murdered organizers, and money dominated politics 
probably more so even than it does now.
  Believe it or not, but you know what. Those courageous citizens were 
successful. They changed our country for the better.
  So it is, 100 years later, we now see some revolutionary changes in 
the economy. Now it is an international economy, and trade policy 
dramatically affects the quality or lack of quality of the lives of 
people we represent. What I insist on is that there be some rules that 
go with this new international economy. I don't trust these 
multinational corporations to look out for the best interests of family 
farmers or workers or ordinary citizens in my State of Minnesota or 
anywhere else.

  I will tell you something. Over the next 10 years, I want to say 
today in this Chamber to the Senator from Iowa, this will become a 
burning issue--whether or not with this new international economy we 
just say the market handles everything or whether or not we say, isn't 
there some way that ordinary citizens fit into this somehow and there 
are some rules that go with this to make sure it works for people.
  That is what people 100 years ago were saying: We want this new 
national commerce civilized. We want it to work for us ordinary people, 
too. That is basically my framework.
  Now, first of all, the amendment is about jobs, not this overall 
political economy debate in particular and specifically I say a 
thorough analysis of the impact. Second of all, as to why we are 
talking about an impact, we have some specificity, I say to my 
colleague from Iowa. It is on the basis I said earlier during the 
debate. You want to look at job security. You want to look at also the 
level of compensation. You want to look at regional distribution. You 
want to look at where people are losing jobs. And you want to look at 
past trade agreements. Frankly, we ought to look at all of that.
  There are some good economists and others who have argued that it 
isn't even just the case of loss of jobs. It is also a question of 
whether or not these trade agreements and companies that then leave 
parts of our country basically deny ordinary working people the 
leverage they need in their bargaining and their negotiations so they 
are put at a more severe disadvantage and have to settle for even lower 
wages or even worse health care benefits because of the threat of more 
companies leaving. Let's have analysis of that.
  The next question from my colleague from Iowa was, how would this 
affect what a President does? Presumably, a President, whether that 
President is a Democrat or Republican, will look at the impact it has 
on many working families throughout the country or in regions of the 
country and then decide it is good or decide maybe not--maybe now that 
I have all this data before me and all the specific information before 
me what I thought was a good agreement might not be good.
  I think the President and the Members of the Congress as 
decisionmakers should have more information. That is all. Frankly, I 
think the general public should as well.
  As to the whole question of why regional, I do not prejudge the final 
decision that any President or we would make, I say to my colleague 
from Iowa, about these agreements, but I do think we should know if it 
has a particularly harsh impact on textiles in the South. If it has a 
particularly harsh impact on auto workers, let's know. If it has a 
particularly harsh impact on steelworkers or taconite workers on the 
Iron Range, we want to know. All politics are local. Tip O'Neill said 
that. It is true. We all come to fight for people in our States, and we 
should have the information on how these agreements affect particular 
regions or States. Does it mean a President might not still think it is 
the right agreement? Does it mean that Senators agree or disagree?
  Gunnar Myrdal was right, and I am not firing accusations at my 
colleagues. I just love the quote. Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish 
socialist, once said, ``Ignorance is never random. Sometimes we don't 
know what we don't want to know.'' I say we should know what we need to 
know. That is what this amendment says.

  Finally, and this is my only hard-hitting point, my colleague from 
Iowa said it could be dropped from the conference--I think heard him 
say that--if we accept it. It could be. I tell you what my position is 
on this bill. If the Senator did not say that, better yet. I apologize.
  My position on this bill is, we will see what it turns out to be in 
the Senate. I think there are some good amendments that have passed. We 
still have an amendment on supporting legacy costs for steelworkers. We 
have good trade adjustment assistance. I want to see ultimately where 
we come down. I reserve final judgment until I see what kind of bill we 
have. But if, in conference committee, this becomes some little 
strategy game and there are a few people in conference committee who 
say, ``Well, now we are together here, we will just knock this 
amendment out and knock that amendment out; they passed it in the 
Senate, and they did it on voice vote and we can knock it out,'' there 
are a lot of us who are going to raise cane, and we probably won't win 
on the vote, but, ultimately, we all get held accountable. I think it 
will take some real explaining as to why anyone would not want to have 
an honest, rigorous assessment of how trade agreements affect the lives 
of people we represent, period.
  I am pleased to have a recorded vote on this if we are going to start 
talking about knocking it out of conference committee. I have not 
decided; I guess I could ask for the yeas and nays. I do not know. I 
want to see what my colleagues are interested in.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I commend the Senator from Minnesota for his amendment. I 
think it is a good amendment. It improves upon an already good piece of 
legislation. That is, the underlying legislation already has employment 
impact provisions.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota goes further, and 
I think that is good. The more people know about the ramifications of 
trade and the more different organizations investigate the 
ramifications of trade, the better we will be. I tend to subscribe to 
the John Locke ``marketplace of ideas'' philosophy and welcome a good, 
honest discussion of the issues. I believe that the more discussion we 
have, the more the sun shines, the more likely it is we will do what is 
right.
  It is almost axiomatic. The more the Senator from Minnesota offers 
amendments such as these, the better off we are all going to be in the 
short term and the long run. We will know more about how trade does or 
does not affect job security, one of the provisions in his amendment. 
We will know more about how trade affects levels of compensation.
  It has often been stated, frankly, that some of the jobs created as a 
result of trade pay more than nontrade jobs. It is equally clear that 
many jobs are displaced by this very rapid race to globalization that 
is occurring in the United States as well as other countries.
  I also think that regional distribution of employment, another one of 
the Senator's goals, is a good one. Let's see if there is regional 
distribution as a consequence of trade. I say this in part because 
trade itself is not the most exciting topic in the world. It is sort of 
an opaque gauze that clouds Senators' minds when we talk about trade, 
except when we see the real life effects of trade. Real life effects 
can be positive and not so positive.
  The Senator is trying to put a real life face on trade, to look at 
the actual effects or real people. I think this is a very good idea. I 
commend him and urge the Senate to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to go along with the 
amendment as well, but I want to make very clear that it seems to me it 
emphasizes the negative impact of trade, and we have 70 years that 
prove the positive impact of international trade. We also had President 
Clinton saying that out of 22 million jobs, a third of those, 7 million 
jobs, were a result of trade. So there are positive aspects of trade.
  Somewhere along the line in conference this has to be rewritten so it 
is

[[Page S4352]]

balanced between what is negative with trade, which I have to admit 
there are always adjustments in the economy. With or without trade, 
there are adjustments in the economy. There are winners and losers. But 
there are positive benefits of trade and the positive benefits outweigh 
the negatives many times. We have to emphasize that.
  Also, before we leave this issue, there is an emphasis between the 
approach of the Senator from Minnesota, to what he calls a new 
international economy, and my approach to the new international 
economy. He says this is not a debate between protectionism and free 
trade. He puts it in terms of those who think you ought to manage the 
new international economy or let the marketplace have free flow.
  When the Senator from Minnesota uses the word ``manage''--I do not 
know whether he used the word ``manage''--we have to be able to manage 
the new international economy. There is a difference in approach. If we 
are going to have management, it is going to be the government doing 
the managing, as opposed to the free marketplace.
  Is there an unfettered use of the free marketplace? Absolutely not. 
There have always been rules. What is basic to this debate, center to 
this debate, is whether the United States is going to be at the table 
for the rulemaking of the international economy, and the rulemaking 
meaning we are not going to have an unfettered free market, but we are 
going to have a predictable free market. There are going to be certain 
rules that all competitors will follow in the international community.

  Trade promotion authority is whether or not the Congress of the 
United States, through our contract with the President to represent the 
people of the United States, will be at the negotiating table when the 
rules are made. That is why it is so darn important that this 
legislation pass because, as the Senator from Minnesota says, we need 
to give some direction. That has been the history of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade process since 1947. That has been the 
basis of the World Trade Organization process since 1994: to have the 
rule of law apply to international trade.
  Should the 270 million people of the United States be at the table to 
help write those rules? For that to happen, this bill must pass for the 
President to have the authority and the credibility to help write those 
rules that the Senator from Minnesota believes are so necessary. That 
is not managing the world economy; that is giving predictability to the 
players in the world economy, and rules of the game that must be 
followed and for a dispute settlement process when somebody is an 
outlaw in the international economy.
  I hope we make clear this legislation is very important to accomplish 
what the Senator from Minnesota wants to accomplish at least in the way 
of not having an unfettered free market, although in his statements he 
tends more toward the government managing the world economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we can finish. I do not know why the 
intensity goes up with my colleague from Iowa since I think we enjoy 
each other as friends. I have two quick points and will be done.
  First, I have to say in a friendly way that I think the Senator from 
Iowa misreads this. I am not going to call for a recorded vote. We are 
trying to work together and the Senator supports this amendment. When 
my colleagues says this is too negative, I do not prejudge what these 
studies find. I am skeptical about it. I have laid out some figures of 
what I think is happening to trade, but to say you are going to do an 
assessment on job security, compensation of jobs, displacement of 
employment, and regional distribution, my colleague is actually making 
my case for me by thinking it is negative because he must think the 
study will show the consequences are negative. We do not need to change 
any language. Just do the assessment.
  People in good faith can have different views. My colleagues might 
think such a study makes the case for these trade agreements. Maybe it 
will. I do not think so. Frankly, let's see what the assessment does. 
It is not negative or positive. I am just saying this is what we have 
to look at and then we will see what the results show.
  I never used the word ``manage.'' This is semantics. This 
administration thinks that commercial property rights are primary in 
trade agreements. I think labor, environment, human rights, and 
consumer protection are also primary. They are not secondary. That 
should be part of the new rules. That is the only difference we have.
  By the way, what is interesting to me is that there can be a million 
editorials written in the most prestigious newspapers--actually most 
people in the country feel the same way. They feel like, let us not 
build walls. I am an internationalist, but please make sure our 
concerns and our families' concerns are somehow met.

  What is going to be the impact on us? Are there going to be any fair 
labor standards? Are there going to be any human rights standards? Is 
there going to be anything about the environment? Why is it so weighted 
toward commercial property rights? What happened to our rights as 
workers? What happened to our rights as consumers? What happened to our 
rights as families who are worried about the jobs we lose? We could go 
on, but we will not.
  I have one final thing to say. My colleague from Montana, when he was 
talking about the increase in jobs, or someone was--I remember this 
famous quote, and I think it was a good one, from one of the industrial 
workers who lost her job in a high-paying industry. President Clinton--
I will be bipartisan about this--was talking about all the jobs 
created, and she said: Yes, I know all of them now. I have three of 
them because I need three jobs to make the wages and support my family 
from what was my one job as an autoworker.
  None of the Senators, Democrats or Republicans alike, would ever 
convince the industrial workers of this Nation that they have not 
gotten the short end of the stick as a result of some of these trade 
agreements. The autoworkers in Iowa will not be convinced of that. They 
never will, I do not think, as good a Senator as the Senator from Iowa 
is, and my colleague from Iowa is as good a Senator as one could find. 
I just think they do not see it that way. And I do not, either.
  In any case, we will do the impact statement, with my colleagues' 
support, and I hope this is not gutted in conference committee. I think 
it would be a huge mistake. I think it would be as if to say we do not 
want to have a good study. Let us have the assessment and then we will 
know.
  Do my colleagues want to move forward on the vote?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3416.
  The amendment (No. 3416) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have made progress on this bill. There 
are a couple of other Senators who are now in a position to offer 
amendments, which I think will be offered very shortly. I hope they 
offer them very shortly because that would mean more progress.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3417 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered 
3417 and I call it up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3417 to amendment No. 3401.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4353]]

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Labor to award grants to 
  community colleges to establish job training programs for adversely 
                           affected workers)

       Chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2271 et seq.), as amended by section 111, is amended by 
     inserting after section 240 the following:

     ``SEC. 240A. JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants to community colleges (as defined 
     in section 202 of the Tech-Prep Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     2371)) on a competitive basis to establish job training 
     programs for adversely affected workers.
       ``(b) Application.--
       ``(1) Submission.--To receive a grant under this section, a 
     community college shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     shall require.
       ``(2) Contents.--The application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall provide a description of--
       ``(A) the population to be served with grant funds received 
     under this section;
       ``(B) how grant funds received under this section will be 
     expended; and
       ``(C) the job training programs that will be established 
     with grant funds received under this section, including a 
     description of how such programs relate to workforce needs in 
     the area where the community college is located.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a community college shall be located in an 
     eligible community (as defined in section 271).
       ``(d) Decision on Applications.--Not later than 30 days 
     after submission of an application under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall approve or disapprove the application.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--A community college that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds to 
     establish job training programs for adversely affected 
     workers.
       On page 55, insert between lines 2 and 3 the following:
       ``(D) Additional weeks for remedial education.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in order 
     to assist an adversely affected worker to complete training 
     approved for the worker under section 240, if the program is 
     a program of remedial education in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, payments may be made 
     as trade adjustment allowances for up to 26 additional weeks 
     in the 26-week period that follows the last week of 
     entitlement to trade adjustment allowances otherwise payable 
     under this chapter.''.
       At the end of section 2102(b), insert the following:
       (15) Textile negotiations.--
       (A) In general.--The principal negotiating objectives of 
     the United States with respect to trade in textiles and 
     apparel articles is to obtain competitive opportunities for 
     United States exports of textiles and apparel in foreign 
     markets substantially equivalent to the 
     competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in 
     United States markets and to achieve fairer and more open 
     conditions of trade in textiles and apparel by--
       (i) reducing to levels that are the same as, or lower than, 
     those in the United States, or eliminating, by a date 
     certain, tariffs or other charges that decrease market 
     opportunities for United States exports of textiles and 
     apparel;
       (ii) eliminating by a date certain non-tariff barriers that 
     decrease market opportunities for United States textile and 
     apparel articles;
       (iii) reducing or eliminating subsidies that decrease 
     market opportunities for United States exports or unfairly 
     distort textile and apparel markets to the detriment of the 
     United States;
       (iv) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules to 
     eliminate practices that unfairly decrease United States 
     market access opportunities or distort textile and apparel 
     markets to the detriment of the United States;
       (v) taking into account whether a party to the negotiations 
     has failed to adhere to the provisions of already existing 
     trade agreements with the United States or has circumvented 
     obligations under those agreements;
       (vi) taking into account whether a product is subject to 
     market distortions by reason of a failure of a major 
     producing country to adhere to the provisions of already 
     existing trade agreements with the United States or by the 
     circumvention by that country of its obligations under those 
     agreements;
       (vii) otherwise ensuring that countries that accede to the 
     World Trade Organization have made meaningful market 
     liberalization commitments in textiles and apparel; and
       (viii) taking into account the impact that agreements 
     covering textiles and apparel trade to which the United 
     States is already a party are having on the United States 
     textile and apparel industry.
       (B) Scope of objective.--The negotiating objectives set 
     forth in subparagraph (A) apply with respect to trade in 
     textile and apparel articles to be addressed in any trade 
     agreement entered into under section 2103 (a) or (b), 
     including any trade agreement entered under section 2103 (a) 
     or (b) that provides for accession to a trade agreement to 
     which the United States is already a party.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will speak to 
that contains a number of proposals.
  We all recognize that trade has done some very good things for many 
Americans. We know that. It is also important to recognize something 
else: Trade has hurt a lot of people; it has hurt them in ways that 
sometimes people in Washington are not willing to recognize. To people 
in Washington, DC, free trade is a good concept. To a lot of people in 
my State of North Carolina, and all over the South, and, in fact, for 
that matter, all across America, free trade is a lot more than an 
abstract concept that people in Washington talk about. For them, trade 
has had an enormous impact. In some ways, it has meant an end to a way 
of life that they have enjoyed for a long time, from generation to 
generation.
  For those people who are hurting, we have an opportunity as part of 
this legislation to make life better. My view is we have not only an 
opportunity but a responsibility to make life better. Americans have 
always watched out for each other, and we need to do exactly the same 
thing when it comes to trade. We need to watch out and make sure we do 
not leave behind millions of our fellow citizens who have been hurt by 
trade and trade policy.
  The people who are hurt are real people. They are mothers and 
fathers. They work hard. They work just as hard as anyone else in this 
country. They play by the same rules as everyone else. They do right by 
their family. They go to work every day and do their job. They work 
very hard to build a future for their family.
  These people are being hurt, and many of them badly hurt, by trade.
  I am speaking particularly about folks who are in the textile and 
furniture industries. There are a lot of those folks in my State of 
North Carolina. But there are also hundreds of thousands of those 
workers across the South--in fact, in places all over the country, such 
as upstate New York.
  For most of the 20th century, manufacturing jobs were the basis of 
our economy in this country. People who worked in those jobs didn't get 
rich, but they were able to take care of their families, they were able 
to go to church, participate in and contribute to their communities, 
and oftentimes they were able to send their kids to college. The jobs 
never paid great, but they paid well enough--you know, $10, $12 an 
hour--for them to take care of their families.
  The jobs did, however, come with health care benefits so they didn't 
have to worry about taking care of their family if someone got sick or 
their children got sick. They came with vacations so they got a chance 
to spend time with their family every year.
  The textile mills and furniture factories have been the cornerstone 
of a way of life in the South, a very good way of life. That way of 
life is now being greatly affected and, in many cases, destroyed by 
trade.
  Since the beginning of the year 2001, 179 textile plants have closed 
in this country. We have lost 91,000 textile jobs. That is just since 
the beginning of the year 2001.
  If you go back to 1997, the numbers are even worse. This chart is a 
listing of the jobs, textile jobs that have been lost since 1997. My 
State of North Carolina has been hardest hit. We have lost 122,000 jobs 
since 1997. That is 122,000 families who, over the course of the last 5 
years, have lost their jobs.
  In Georgia, they have also been hit hard, losing 95,000 jobs during 
the same period of time. South Carolina lost 61,000 jobs; Alabama, 
35,000 jobs lost; Virginia, 23,000 jobs lost.
  In North Carolina, we have had 57 plants close since the year 2001. 
In the years between 1994 and 2000, we lost more than 100,000 jobs due 
to international trade.
  There are towns in North Carolina where the mill employed literally a 
quarter of the people who lived in the town--one out of every four 
people. Now the mill is gone and hundreds of people are looking for 
work and the town is devastated.
  In Washington, you often hear people say--and I have heard this in 
the debate on the floor of the Senate, and I have heard it all around 
Washington, DC, in discussions on the impact of trade--well, they lost 
those jobs, but they can get better jobs. That probably is true. It may 
well be true in the big picture. The problem is, in a Southern mill 
town it is a very different picture.
  I grew up in Southern mill towns. My father worked in textile mills 
all of his

[[Page S4354]]

adult life--37 years, if I remember correctly. I know firsthand what 
impact closing of these mills has on the town. They are the heart and 
soul of the economy, and they are part of a way of life. The vast 
majority of these other, better jobs that you hear people talk about 
are not in that town. That is the problem. When the mill closes down, 
these jobs everyone is talking about, the better jobs that will 
ultimately be available because of free trade, they are not in that 
town. They are not anywhere near that town in a lot of cases.

  It so happens that those jobs are also not the kind of jobs that a 
middle-aged ex-millworker is going to be able to get.
  I often thought when I heard the discussions about, ``There are other 
jobs,'' ``We can do job retraining,'' all of that is important. I do 
believe, for the country as a whole, free trade has a lot of positive 
benefits. There is no question about that. But for those people who are 
affected directly, they are hit like a laser by these trade policies 
and this trade legislation. They are tremendously affected.
  To say to men or women who have spent their entire lives taking care 
of their family, providing for their family, now at the age of 45, 50, 
55, ``We want you to change work; we want you to go to another kind of 
employment,'' this is not just about a job, although their job is very 
important to them. It is about their dignity, their self-respect. It is 
about their belief that that mother and father have always been able to 
take care of their family, and all of a sudden they are not able to do 
that anymore. They are being asked to train to do something entirely 
new when they have spent their entire life doing this particular job.
  I was blessed to be the first person in my family to go to college. A 
lot of folks are like my parents. They are great people. They work very 
hard, but sometimes they have not in their life had the extraordinary 
opportunity that many of us had in terms of our education. Across this 
country, about 60 percent of people have some college education, which 
is good; we hope that continues to improve as we go forward. But in the 
areas we are talking about, where these mills are closing and where 
people have spent a lot of their lives working in those mills, the 
number is closer to 20 percent. It is more like one out of five people 
have some college education.
  So when a furniture factory or cotton mill in North Carolina shuts 
down, oftentimes we have half the workers who do not even have a high 
school diploma or a GED. The workers in these mills also are not young. 
The average worker affected by a trade deal is more than 40 years old. 
They have usually two kids, sometimes more. There is a good chance many 
of them have never spent any time working outside that factory. That 
has been their entire life.
  So when that factory closes and somebody in Washington, DC, says, 
``Oh, you can get a job in one of these other dynamic sectors of the 
economy,'' it is a lot easier said than done. The people suffering from 
trade have tremendous trouble getting back what they are losing.
  When you look at North Carolina workers over age 55 who lose their 
jobs due to trade, only half have found work within 2 years. So within 
2 years, still almost half of those people are unemployed. These are 
folks who know how to work. They have worked all their lives. They are 
some of the hardest working people I have ever seen.
  I still remember vividly going in the mill when I was young and 
seeing the men and women who worked in that mill with my dad, and then 
when I got a little older I worked there sometimes in summers or part-
time. I have never seen anyone work harder. They were extraordinary. 
They did it to provide for their families--for their family's self-
respect and dignity and for their own. They were proud of what they 
did, and they ought to have been proud of it.
  The problem is, although they are looking for work, and they know how 
to work, they just cannot find work. If they do find work, sometimes it 
is not good work. Instead of making $12 an hour, which they had been 
making in a mill, or $15 an hour, they are looking instead at a 
minimum-wage job with no benefits and no health care. Those are the 
kind of problems with which these folks are confronted. It is real. It 
has an enormously devastating effect on their lives.

  When a plant closes, it is not just the people who work there who are 
affected; the small businesses that used to sell groceries and clothes 
to the people who work in that mill suffer as well. The companies where 
the plant used to buy materials and equipment suffer. The city 
hospitals, the police force that depend on taxes from that plant and 
from the people who work in that plant suffer.
  According to some projections, for every job the textile industry 
loses, we may lose two more jobs as well. So families are suffering 
because of trade, but not just families; communities are also 
suffering.
  We need to do right by these folks, by the people who lose their 
jobs, and by the communities. We need to do right by doing two things. 
First, we need to make sure that our trade deals give the same 
considerations to textile workers they are giving to our farmers. That 
is totally consistent with the current TPA bill and totally consistent 
with fair trade.
  By the way, I think it is a very good idea to have the language in 
the bill that provides protection and support for our farmers. That is 
also important in North Carolina. But we ought to treat these factory 
workers, these textile workers exactly the same way. It is right and it 
is fair.
  Second, when trade does hurt factory workers in industries such as 
textiles, we need to make sure those workers have every opportunity to 
get back on their feet. We all say that is our goal, but we need to 
make sure the law is as strong as our words.
  So today, I have three proposals, all contained in one amendment now, 
for amending trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. 
I expect as we go forward that I may have additional proposals and at 
least one, and perhaps more, additional amendments.
  I have been working with my colleagues, the Senator from Iowa and the 
Senator from Montana, on not only this amendment and proposals 
contained in this amendment, but also additional amendments. I will 
continue to work with them. I appreciate very much their cooperation.


                       RECOVERY OF SENATOR HELMS

  I take a moment to bring my colleagues up to date on how our friend 
and colleague, Senator Jesse Helms, is doing. I spoke with his staff a 
few minutes ago. They are very pleased with his progress. He is doing 
well. They think he is making terrific progress. I know all Members 
have been thinking about him and have had Senator Helms and his wife 
Dot and their entire family in our thoughts and prayers since this 
serious surgery. We will continue to do so. He is doing well.
  His terrific staff, as usual, is carrying on their work with great 
diligence and skill, as I told Senator Helms. He is doing very well. We 
are very encouraged.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank my colleague from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank him for that eloquent presentation. He knows 
these people and he knows this problem so very well.
  Mr. President, I rise also in support of this country's textile 
industry, an industry that is in crisis and an industry that needs our 
help very badly.
  By the way, it was good to hear that report on Senator Helms. I know, 
if he possibly could, he would be here speaking with that unique 
passion that he has on this subject.
  This industry is suffering from the worst economic crisis since the 
Great Depression. I realize several factors have contributed to this 
crisis; most notably is the strong competition of the U.S. dollar 
against foreign currencies.
  For example, there has been an average 40-percent decline in Asian 
currencies against the U.S. dollar over the past 4 years. Prices for 
Asian yarn and fabric have dropped by as much as 38 percent.
  This has caused a flood of artificially low-priced textile and 
apparel products into our U.S. markets. At the same time, prices for 
U.S. textile products have plummeted since 1997 and profits have 
evaporated. And when prices fall, and profits disappear, plant owners 
have no choice but to lay off workers

[[Page S4355]]

and close down plants. And that is exactly what has happened in this 
country.
  The Senator from North Carolina gave you some telling statistics. 
Since the beginning of 2001, 179 textile plants have closed in this 
country. We have lost 91,000 textile jobs.
  Bringing it home to my State of Georgia, since 2000, 17 textile 
plants have closed. That has put more than 19,000 Georgians out of 
work--19,000 Georgians out of work.
  This is not just some cold statistic that some member of my staff has 
researched and come up with. I know many of these workers. They are my 
friends. They are my neighbors. They have families to care for. They 
want to work. As the Senator from North Carolina emphasized, they want 
to work.
  In my neighboring mountainous county of Fannin County, where the last 
plant closed in Georgia, we call them the salt of the Earth.
  My colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, has offered 
several amendments to provide some assistance to our ailing textile 
industry and to offer relief to hundreds of thousands of textile 
workers who have lost their jobs.
  I am very grateful he has come forward with these amendments--and 
this amendment. This amendment would help level the playing field for 
the textile industry in trade negotiations. It spells out for the 
President the objectives he should seek in any trade agreement that 
involves the textile industry.
  I want to be very clear--as the Senator from North Carolina was--we 
are not seeking special treatment for the textile industry. The 
objectives we want to include for textiles are no different than the 
objectives spelled out in trade promotion authority for other 
industries, such as agriculture.
  The objectives are simple and broad. We ask that the President seek 
competitive opportunities for U.S. exports of textile products.
  Also, we ask that the President reduce or eliminate tariffs or other 
charges that hurt market opportunities for U.S. textile exports.
  Again, these are the very same objectives we have listed for other 
industries in the TPA bill.
  The textile industry in the United States has a proud history, and it 
has served this country well. All we are asking for today is a level 
playing field. All we are asking for is a seat at the negotiating table 
for an industry that is so important to rural communities across the 
South and across the Nation.
  Simply stated, it is a matter of fairness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia. He and 
I understand the people who work in textile mills in these small towns, 
as do a number of our other colleagues in the Senate. It is wonderful 
to hear him describe, firsthand, what he and I have both seen all our 
lives among the people who live there. I appreciate his support of the 
amendment. And I appreciated his eloquence on this subject because he 
truly does understand the plight of these folks.
  I want to talk about the three proposals contained in this amendment. 
The first proposal is very simple. Right now, the trade promotion 
authority bill is full of objectives for different purposes--electronic 
commerce, intellectual property, border taxes. Every one of those 
things has its own objectives. The bill has a whole section of 
objectives for agriculture, which is good. It is a good thing.
  All told, there are more than a dozen kinds of objectives, with pages 
on each. I do not have any problem with any of that.
  When Congress gives the President as much negotiating authority as 
TPA provides, the least we can do is make sure how the President should 
exercise that authority.
  This is my concern. There is a glaring omission from those 
objectives. That omission is textiles and apparel. There is not a 
single objective for trade in textiles and apparel. Here is an American 
industry clearly being destroyed by trade, and there is not a word 
about it--not a word. That is wrong.
  If we are going to give the President broad authority to enter more 
free trade agreements, we need to make sure the President's negotiators 
do not leave behind the people who work in these mills. These folks 
have already suffered enough from trade agreements. This amendment 
would set this problem straight, by including a set of objectives for 
textiles and apparel.
  There is nothing radical about the objectives. In fact, the language 
closely parallels existing objectives for other areas, specifically 
agriculture.
  Let me give you a few examples of how closely my amendment tracks the 
agriculture language already in the bill. For agriculture, the 
objective is: ``to obtain competitive opportunities for United States 
exports of agricultural commodities in foreign markets substantially 
equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in 
United States markets and to achieve fairer and more open conditions of 
trade'' for various agricultural commodities.
  That language makes sense.
  This is what our amendment does: If you take out the words 
``agricultural commodities'' and insert the words ``textiles and 
apparel,'' you have the amendment. It does exactly the same thing with 
exactly the same language.
  The agricultural objectives talk about ``reducing or eliminating, by 
a date certain, tariffs or other charges that decrease market 
opportunities for United States exports.'' Again, the language makes 
sense. Our amendment has exactly the same language.
  So my point is this: We are not asking for any special treatment for 
the textile industry. It just says that textile workers are just as 
good and just as important as others who make enormous contributions to 
our economy, such as farmers.
  Let me also be clear, the amendment does not ask for special 
treatment for our textile industry compared to other countries. The 
amendment just says that our textile industry should be treated by 
other countries the same way their textile industries are treated in 
this country--with a level playing field. That is all we are asking.
  Today, that field is not level. We have cut our tariffs. Between 1995 
and 2000, our imports of textiles from other countries have nearly 
doubled. That is because we cut our tariffs.
  In the same period, our trading partners maintained their barriers to 
our products. We played fair; they did not. As a result, our partners 
have gotten access to markets and shut down our mills. When we have 
tried to get into their markets, we have been met by trade barriers 
that make it impossible.
  This amendment says, very simply, that when it comes to textiles, the 
President's negotiators should work for a level playing field--not 
special preferences, just equal treatment.
  So, to sum up, there are two major points in this part of the 
amendment, this part of the proposal. First, textiles deserve to be 
treated as well as agriculture--not better, just the same. Second, as 
with agriculture, that does not mean special treatment for American 
textiles compared to other countries; it just means equal treatment 
compared to other countries. That is fair and just.

  The second proposal contained in this amendment is aimed at making 
community college more accessible for people who have lost their jobs 
and are being hurt by trade. We all know how critical education is to 
economic opportunity. But for workers who lose their jobs, community 
college really is the key. It can make the difference between chronic 
unemployment or a good career in a new job.
  Community colleges cost half as much as the average public university 
and 90 percent less than the average private college. And thanks to 
community colleges, 5 million workers earn degrees and certificates 
every year in professions ranging from information technology to health 
care to construction.
  Let me give one example of how community colleges can transform 
lives. These are the words of a former textile worker who is now a 
student at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown, NC. He 
says:

       The college gives you more than just the ability to train 
     for a different job. It also gives you back some hope that 
     has been stripped away when your skills and experience are no 
     longer useful.

  I talked about this earlier. This is not just about a new job and 
taking

[[Page S4356]]

care of your family. It is about self-respect and dignity. We ought to 
give people back the hope that unemployment has taken away.
  The trouble now is that many community colleges can't keep pace with 
the demand, especially in communities where textile mills are closing. 
In fact, as mills close and workers need retraining more than ever, 
community colleges are seeing their budgets go down. So you have more 
demand for community college and fewer seats in the classroom. That is 
the opposite of what we want.
  Let me give a couple of examples. In 2001, Mayland Community College 
in Spruce Pines, NC, saw enrollment go up by 40 percent after two 
textile plants in the area closed. Hundreds of additional workers had 
to be turned away from courses. The college didn't have the resources 
to serve them.
  At Cleveland Community College in Shelby, NC, enrollment will grow by 
15 percent next year at the same time that the college's budget is 
being cut by 10 percent. As a result, the school had to cancel training 
programs this summer that would have served over 400 workers, about 20 
percent of the school's population.
  These stories are typical. All across the country our community 
colleges are struggling. We, in Congress, have to step up and make sure 
community colleges fulfill the critical role they have always filled.
  This amendment establishes a grant program to provide an emergency 
infusion of aid to community colleges in areas hard hit by foreign 
trade so that they can create or expand retraining programs. This 
program will compensate for cuts in State and local aid and make sure 
community colleges can meet the needs of workers in their area who have 
lost their jobs.
  At the same time, this amendment also encourages community colleges 
to serve workers who have not yet lost their jobs but who are at a high 
risk of losing them. If you know you are going to lose your job and you 
want to go back to school for a new job, you are doing the right thing. 
We ought to help that and promote it. Much of the time we do exactly 
the opposite. Folks can't go back to school. At a result, they are left 
stuck where they are.
  People who want to plan ahead ought to be able to do it. This 
amendment would give them a chance by supporting training not just for 
workers who have already lost their jobs and been displaced but also 
for workers who know the pink slip is coming and that they have to 
prepare for it.

  The third proposal and the last proposal in the amendment meets a 
very specific need. When a worker loses his job at a mill, one of best 
things he can do is go back to school for more training. That is 
especially true for working people who do not have a GED or who are 
immigrants with very poor English. The best thing these workers can do 
is get a GED or take an English as a second language class, an ESL 
class.
  Here is the problem. Today if you qualify for trade assistance, you 
get 2 years of help with your education, but only 18 months of help 
with your income. That is a huge problem for somebody who is trying to 
get a GED or take an ESL class. If they are getting help paying for 
school, they often run out of money because they have to provide for 
their family before they finish their education and their training.
  As a result, they are forced to drop out of school. Instead of 
graduating and getting a job that may pay $15, $20 an hour, they have 
to stop, quit, and take a job that pays the minimum wage. This is 
wrong. We should not force people who lose their jobs because of 
foreign trade to choose between getting the education they want and 
need and being able to put food on the table.
  This amendment solves that problem by allowing extensions for 6 
months of the TAA income allowances for workers who have taken a GED or 
ESL class and are finishing up their training. Six more months of 
income support can mean a lifetime of higher wages and higher living 
conditions. It is the right thing to do.
  In sum, the three proposals contained in this amendment are aimed at 
a very specific objective. They are aimed at helping people who have 
families, mothers, fathers, people who have worked hard all their lives 
to provide for their family, to contribute to their community, to 
contribute to their country, to get back on their feet and in another 
job, to get back to work, which they desperately want to do. They have 
spent their whole lives taking care of their families, doing right by 
their families and their communities and making an enormous 
contribution. They just want to do it again. We want to make sure they 
get a chance to do it again. That is what the amendment is about.
  I urge all my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North 
Carolina on his amendment. It is one that is particularly needed for 
his area of the country for several reasons. One is that under 
agreements that predate the Uruguay Round in 1992, the quota on 
textiles and apparel is gradually being phased out. That is going to 
put tremendous additional pressure on employees working in the 
Senator's area of the country, the South, which means we need to go the 
extra mile to help people who will be dislocated as a result of various 
and significant changes in the textile and apparel industry.
  I compliment the Senator. He is standing up for his people and the 
State he represents, as is Senator Miller. I am sure that others who 
represent textile and apparel workers have the same concerns. I 
compliment them as well.
  The underlying bill, as the Senator said, does have certain 
negotiated objectives. The Senator adds an additional objective that 
would specifically address trade in textile and apparel products. I 
must say that although we have the most open market in the world, many 
of our competitors, unfortunately, are not nearly as open. As it 
happens in the textile and apparel sector, some of the most active 
exporters of these products happen to be countries that maintain the 
highest barriers to imports into their own country. For that reason, 
the amendment we are now discussing directs our negotiators to focus 
their efforts on achieving fairer and more open conditions of trade in 
textile articles, particularly with major textile and apparel export 
countries.
  It also instructs them to take into account whether our negotiating 
partners have played by the rules under existing agreements. This, too, 
is very important.
  For that reason, I urge the Senate to strongly endorse this 
amendment. I am sure my colleague from Iowa has the same point of view. 
When he finishes his statement, I will make a request as to when we 
vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the three amendments offered 
by the Senator from North Carolina. He has been very accommodating in 
working with us to make sure these amendments could go very smoothly.
  I believe it is appropriate to establish principal negotiating 
objectives for textiles and for apparel. Neither the House trade 
promotion authority bill nor the bipartisan trade promotion authority 
bill that Senator Baucus and I now have before the Senate--and was 
approved by an 18-to-3 vote in our committee--contain negotiating 
objectives for this sector of our economy, textiles and apparel.
  The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina fills this gap by 
establishing principal negotiating objectives modeled after things I 
have supported for agriculture, such as we have agricultural 
negotiating objectives that emphasize the importance of reciprocal 
market opening commitments.
  These new textile negotiating objectives also recognize that it is 
important to promote market access opportunities abroad and to do it 
for U.S. producers and to reduce and/or eliminate nontariff trade-
distorting measures which limit access for U.S. producers in markets 
overseas.
  Ultimately, the best way to help workers in the United States who are 
or may be displaced by trade is to create as many new market access 
opportunities overseas for U.S. producers as possible because the more 
trade and the more product we sell creates jobs in America, and we only 
have a trade bill before the Senate for one purpose: To help our 
economy. When we help our economy, we create jobs. This legislation 
does that, and the amendments by the Senator from North Carolina add to 
the objectives of this goal.

[[Page S4357]]

  I also support enhancing educational opportunities for displaced 
workers. Enhancing workers' educational opportunities is a very 
positive step forward and represents a strong investment in each 
individual worker's future.
  Finally, I support providing emergency assistance grant programs for 
community colleges that provide training programs for displaced 
workers. In fact, in my very State of Iowa, community colleges are 
right in the center of job opportunities, not just for displaced 
workers but even for the training of workers for specific jobs, of 
expanding businesses within our State or jobs that are moving into my 
State from another State.
  This puts on the community colleges a burden for which they are 
prepared. This assistance to the community colleges is consistent with 
the administration's efforts to increase and improve the quality of 2-
year-degree institutions. Workers or families and their communities 
will benefit from this type of assistance. It is consistent with the 
social contract between dislocated workers and our country that is at 
the heart of trade adjustment assistance.
  Obviously, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle to join 
me in supporting these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment offered 
by my colleague from North Carolina. I have joined with the Senator to 
address the shortage of capacity in our community and technical 
colleges as they attempt to meet the increasing demand for job training 
during this period of high unemployment.
  My State in recent months has consistently ranked among the three 
highest unemployment states in the nation. It seems almost every week 
across Washington, we have seen more layoffs, including a large number 
related to the aviation manufacturing industry.
  Washington State has some of the most innovative programs in the 
country to provide displaced and incumbent workers with the training 
they need to find and keep good jobs.
  Unfortunately, as unemployment has gone up, training programs have 
had to turn people away, since there's not enough financial assistance 
available.
  In March, my office issued a report that documented this shortfall of 
capacity to deliver job training in our State. That report showed that 
while there were approximately 115,000 dislocated workers in Washington 
State in January, and an estimated 38,000 of those seeking job training 
services, our institutions would only be able to accommodate 
approximately 12,500 of those individuals.
  All of these Washingtonians want new skills, and they should have the 
opportunity to achieve those goals through the hard work and 
determination required to complete additional job-training courses.
  Those skilled workers are critical to the competitiveness of our 
State and national economy, and the firms that hire them.
  At this critical time for these workers and our economy, community 
colleges in my State are doing everything possible to serve as many 
applicants as possible with existing resources. In Snohomish County, 
over 700 workers are on a waiting list to get help with training costs; 
Everett Community College is approximately 70 percent over-enrolled; 
and Lower Columbia Community College and Clark Community College are 
each more than 250 percent over-enrolled.
  It is clear that we need to significantly increase our Federal 
commitment to job training--both by continuing to expand funding for 
vouchers and Pell Grants, so that workers can pay for tuition, and by 
assisting our institutions that serve those students, so that they can 
offer an adequate number of courses for high-demand occupations.
  My colleague's amendment--now incorporated in amendment No. 3417--
would specifically address this capacity shortage in our community 
colleges. In areas of massive dislocation due to trade, such as 
Washington, the amendment would provide emergency assistance to 
community colleges that plan to create or expand worker training 
programs. The amendment would also encourage colleges seeking 
assistance to not only serve already dislocated workers, but also 
expand programs for incumbent workers at-risk of losing jobs for trade 
related reasons.
  I strongly support this concept, and urge my colleagues to support 
its inclusion in the bill.
  Assisting workers displaced by trade cannot simply be a single-minded 
approach. That's why we have worked so hard to ensure that TAA eligible 
workers have access to an expanded, comprehensive package of benefits 
that includes up to two full years of income and training assistance, a 
strong health care subsidy that will help workers maintain health 
coverage for their families, and job search assistance.
  We have improved the TAA program a great deal in this bill, but 
training assistance will not go far if those workers do not have access 
to the job training programs that they desire because classes at the 
local community college are full, and because funds simply are not 
available in the state to hire new professors, offer more courses, and 
develop the systems to handle more students.
  That is why this amendment is so important. I urge my colleagues to 
support this effort and to work with us in the future to ensure that a 
system exists to better support our job training infrastructure in the 
future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are ready to vote on these amendments, 
but we cannot vote at this time.
  I ask unanimous consent that once debate is concluded on the Edwards 
amendment No. 3417, the amendment be set aside to recur at 1:45 p.m. 
today, and that at 1:45 p.m., there be 4 minutes remaining for debate 
with respect to the Edwards amendment, with the time equally divided 
and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no 
second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote; that once the 
Edwards amendment is set aside, Senator Lieberman be recognized to 
offer an amendment relating to enforceable commitments, without further 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to spend a little time today 
discussing the labor and environment provisions of the fast-track bill 
that is before us. I want to start with one simple truth: When it comes 
to labor and the environment, this is the most progressive trade bill 
that has ever received serious consideration in the Senate. The labor 
and environment provisions in this bill represent dramatic--and I mean 
dramatic--improvement over the bill this Senate considered just several 
years ago.
  Some of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate have 
introduced other bills this year. Some of those bills ignore labor and 
the environment. Others require so much on these issues as to make the 
negotiating process unworkable.
  Both types of bills, in my view, are equally antitrade. They either 
ignore the reality that labor and environment issues are now an 
entrenched part of the trade dialog, or they impose so many burdens and 
barriers on fast track that they render it useless.
  Last year, Congress and the administration worked together to solve 
this problem. We unanimously passed in the Senate the Jordan free trade 
agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration, and President Bush 
signed it into law.
  Using the Jordan agreement as a model, our colleagues in the House 
and Senate drafted a fast-track bill that fully reflects the provisions 
of the Jordan agreement.
  As the committee report states, the negotiating objectives on labor 
and environment are ``based upon the trade and labor and trade and 
environment provisions found in articles 5 and 6 of the United States-
Jordan free trade agreement. Those provisions (including their coverage 
by the Agreement's general dispute settlement procedures) have come to 
be known as the Jordan ``standard.''

  The Jordan agreement breaks new ground on labor and environmental 
issues in two ways. First, both countries agree to work toward better 
labor and environmental standards. That is an agreement by both the 
United States and Jordan, written into the agreement.

[[Page S4358]]

  In the area of labor, we agreed to promote respect for worker rights 
and the rights of children--this is very important--consistent with the 
core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, the ILO.
  We also agreed to protect and preserve the environment and to pursue 
trade and environmental policies that are mutually supportive.
  Second, both countries agreed we would not lower labor or 
environmental standards in an effort to improve our positions on trade. 
That provision of the agreement has equal weight with all other 
provisions of the agreement--it is just as important, and it is just as 
enforceable.
  I want to be clear on this point. By necessity, the language in the 
fast-track bill is not and cannot be identical to the Jordan agreement 
because the Jordan agreement is limited to two countries. The fast-
track bill sets the agenda for future trade agreements.
  That said, the fast-track language incorporates all of the elements 
of the Jordan agreement--every single one--and those who criticize the 
fast-track bill before us as not meeting the Jordan standard are simply 
inaccurate; they are not stating the case. They exaggerate the 
provisions of the Jordan agreement or they mischaracterize the bill.
  Let me address several of the critics' assertions.
  First, opponents criticize this bill as failing to require that 
countries implement core internationally recognized labor standards. 
That is true, the bill does not make that requirement. But the Jordan 
agreement does not make that requirement either. The Jordan agreement 
simply reaffirms obligations of each country that already exist by 
virtue of ILO membership, and it establishes the countries' agreement 
to ``strive to ensure'' that ILO standards are recognized and protected 
by domestic law. If a country strives but fails to actually ensure that 
ILO standards are reflected in domestic law, it has not violated its 
obligation.
  Second, opponents criticize the bill as not including the Jordan 
standard on enforcement. That is simply not true. The Jordan labor and 
environment provision that is susceptible to dispute settlement--that 
is, the requirement that a country not fail to effectively enforce its 
labor and environmental laws in a manner affecting trade as 
incorporated as a priority negotiating objective in the bill.
  Also, negotiators are directed to treat all principal negotiating 
objectives equally with respect to access to dispute settlement, as 
well as with respect to procedures and remedies in dispute settlement.
  Third, opponents criticize this bill because of the late addition of 
the so-called Gramm language. That is the Senator from Texas. They 
suggest this language allows countries to lower labor and environmental 
standards with impunity.
  While I am not a fan of the Gramm language, critics grossly 
exaggerate the effects of this language. The language states that ``no 
retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights''--
that is, regarding countries' discretion to take certain actions--``or 
the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of 
environmental protection.''
  As explained in the committee report accompanying the bill, this 
language is simply meant to--that is the Gramm language--is meant to 
``clarify the language that precedes it in subparagraph (B).

       That is, in negotiating provisions on trade and labor and 
     trade and environment, the United States should make clear 
     that a country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course 
     of action or inaction is the result of a reasonable exercise 
     of discretion or a bona fide decision regarding the 
     allocation of resources and, as such, the country cannot be 
     subject to retaliation on the basis of that course of action 
     or inaction alone.

  In short, the language at issue does not allow countries to lower 
labor and environmental standards with impunity. It does not add to or 
subtract from the other provisions on labor and environment in the 
bill. It merely clarifies that administering authorities are to be 
accorded some leeway, as they are in the United States-Jordan 
agreement. Same, no difference.
  Finally, opponents criticize the fact that promotion of respect for 
worker rights is included in this bill as and ``overall trade 
negotiating objective'' rather than a ``principal trade negotiating 
objective.''
  As explained in the Finance Committee report, all of the subsections 
in section 2 of the bill carry equal importance in defining the trade 
negotiated positions of the United States.
  The report further states:

       It is the expectation of the committee that in affirming 
     that a trade agreement makes progress toward achieving the 
     applicable purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of 
     this bill, the President will address the purposes, policies, 
     priorities, and objectives in each of the subsections of 
     Section 2.

  Moreover, by criticizing the placement of promotion of respect for 
worker rights under the heading of ``overall trade negotiating 
objectives,'' the assertion implies that placement of the objective 
under the heading of ``principal trade negotiating objectives'' would 
somehow make it more enforceable. That is not true.
  The fact is, the ability to use dispute settlement to enforce an 
obligation to promote or to strive to ensure is extremely limited, 
regardless of the section in which it is listed. How would someone 
determine whether a country is promoting core labor standards or 
striving to ensure that those standards are reflected in domestic law?
  Clearly, this legislation would direct the administration to 
negotiate Jordan-like provisions as it completes negotiations with 
Chile and Singapore. And as it moves forward on the free trade area of 
the Americas, it makes Jordan the model for new negotiations with 
Central America, with Australia and others.
  There are also key provisions on labor and the environment added to 
the Senate bill that were not in the House bill. First, in addition to 
an environmental report, which would be codified into law, the 
legislation requires a new report on trading partners' labor practices. 
These reports should clearly identify the problems to be addressed in 
negotiations.
  Second, the Senate bill contains important language to ensure that 
new investor-State provisions, such as NAFTA chapter 11, are 
transparent and accessible to the public. The bill also addresses 
concerns that investor-State provisions may give foreign interests more 
rights than U.S. investors; that is, we made sure that provision is 
addressed in the solution in the bill, and, particularly with the 
adoption of the recent Kerry amendment, strikes a balance between 
legitimate concerns of environmental citizen groups and legitimate 
concerns of American investors overseas.

  Foreign investors and domestic investors are treated the same way, 
and also municipalities are treated the same way with respect to 
domestic investors or foreign investors that may be challenging a 
certain environmental or municipality law under article V of the 
Constitution, the takings provision of the U.S. Constitution.
  Some critics have said this legislation does not go far enough on 
labor and the environment. Many critics, I believe, will never be 
satisfied. They just cannot be satisfied. They simply oppose trade. 
That is fine. Some will be for trade; some will be against trade. I 
respect that. But as we move forward on these issues, we have to be 
realistic. It is simply unreasonable to suggest that we can take our 
labor and environmental laws, that is the United States, impose them on 
developing countries, and slap sanctions on them if their laws do not 
live up to our standards in a few years. That is simply unrealistic. We 
simply would not be able to negotiate agreements if that were the 
position the United States took and those were the provisions that we 
had written into the underlying fast-track bill.
  We have to move forward very aggressively, and the provisions in this 
bill do make that aggressive step forward. We have to keep in mind that 
many of these countries are at a level of development that the United 
States was at 100 years ago. At that time, the U.S. labor and 
environmental laws looked much different than they do today. That is 
not to say we must wait a century for progress. Clearly, we should not 
wait a century.
  Every trade agreement must recognize that labor and environmental 
standards are now on the agenda. I might say that is one of the reasons 
that the Ministers in Seattle collapsed because the world recognized 
that

[[Page S4359]]

labor and environmental provisions should now be on the trade agenda. 
They should not be separate from trade. Our Ministers worldwide were 
unable to adapt quickly enough to come up with a solution dealing with 
labor and environmental issues. The fact is, they are here. The 
question is, What is the most appropriate way to incorporate labor and 
environmental standards?
  We have worked very hard with those most interested in this issue to 
write provisions in the Jordan agreement. That is a major step forward, 
and we are making those Jordan standards the core basis by which we 
proceed today.
  We can lock in important advances that have already been achieved. 
That is what we are doing with the underlying bill. We can create 
positive incentives for countries to raise their standards. We are 
doing that, too. For example, we see phase-in benefits more quickly for 
countries that make progress on labor and environmental issues. We can 
provide technical assistance to help those countries improve their 
practices. Importantly, we can trade more with them.
  Progress on labor and environmental standards often follows economic 
growth. That is certainly true of the United States. Our own country is 
the best example of that. Isolating developing countries will not help 
the United States, either. There will always be those that the fast-
track bill does not do enough for, does not go far enough in protecting 
labor and environmental standards worldwide.
  To them, I say this bill is an enormous step forward. By definition, 
it is a fitting--and I say by definition because the prior bills were 
zero. This has a very significant provision so this is a great step 
forward. It is far stronger on these issues than any previous grant of 
fast track. It is far stronger than the fast-track bills considered by 
the House and Senate only a few short years ago.
  So can we not do more on these issues? Absolutely. And I will 
continue mightily to work to make improvements. That is a process that 
is likely to continue for decades to come. We will continue to work and 
make progress with each passing couple of years on labor and 
environmental provisions.
  At the end of the day, I believe there is something in this bill that 
is very solid with respect to labor and the environment. It is a 
wonderful first step forward, and I believe those who are truly for 
trade worked hard to pass this comprehensive trade bill because, if 
they vote against this bill, then we are back to where we were before, 
that is, no meaningful labor and environmental standards as we have 
worked for in fast track.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we are getting set under the 
unanimous consent agreement before the Senate to take up a Lieberman 
amendment, I will speak about what we have in the bill on workers' 
rights and how we deal therewith.
  The Trade Promotion Authority Act is a bipartisan bill that Senator 
Baucus and I have brought to the floor which contains the most 
comprehensive set of objectives on workers' rights and core 
International Labor Organization labor standards that have ever been 
included in any U.S. trade law dealing with international trade 
negotiations.
  Respect for workers' rights consistent with core International Labor 
Organization standards is a clearly stated U.S. trade objective.
  The President, in his contract with Congress, does our negotiating 
for us, since we cannot have 535 Members negotiating with 142 other 
countries. We have this contract with the President to do it. We direct 
the President through this contract, which is this bill we are 
considering, to seek greater cooperation between the International 
Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization.
  Furthermore, the President is directed to strengthen the capacity of 
foreign governments to achieve core labor standards. The Department of 
Labor will offer technical assistance to these foreign governments. The 
President will seek a commitment by other governments to effectively 
enforce labor laws. The labor provisions will encourage countries to 
improve their labor laws without infringing on their sovereignty.
  The labor negotiating objectives capture the key trade and labor 
provisions we have had before this Senate previously in the U.S.-Jordan 
Free Trade Agreement passed last summer.
  Our contract with the President to negotiate for us contains the 
strongest labor positions our Government has ever taken regarding 
bargaining in the history of World Trade Organization negotiations over 
the last 25 years.
  For the first time, U.S. trade law will include environment as a U.S. 
trade negotiating objective. The environmental provisions will 
encourage countries to improve their labor laws without infringing upon 
their sovereignty. Our President, through these directions, is to 
promote multilateral environmental agreements and consult with parties 
regarding consistency of such agreements with World Trade Organization 
rules. This addresses the widespread concern legitimately expressed 
that trade rules should not interfere with U.S. environmental treaties. 
This bill includes a requirement to conduct environmental reviews of 
future trade and investment agreements.
  This is where we are. The bill before the Senate provides this 
contract for the President to negotiate with these other countries for 
us. And by the way, it is something we must pass by majority vote once 
it is done or it never becomes law. In this contract we have the 
strongest labor and environmental provisions ever.
  The Senator from Connecticut will come to the floor and these will be 
under attack. He will try to amend these very strong provisions we have 
in this legislation because somehow the strongest provisions ever on 
labor and on environment, on trade legislation, are not good enough.

  These are very much a very delicate compromise--issues that have been 
worked out between Republicans and Democrats, not just in this body but 
also in the other body. As you can tell, that was a very tenuous sort 
of agreement that you don't want to mess with so much because it only 
passed by a 1-vote margin, 215 to 214.
  So when we have this sort of bipartisan approach on these very 
critical but sensitive issues such as labor and environment, we want to 
make sure we do not upset that. It is my view, as you will hear later 
on in debate when we get to the specifics of the amendment of the 
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, that his amendments will upset 
this very carefully crafted bipartisan agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the present regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is under a unanimous consent 
agreement under which the next amendment to be considered will be the 
Lieberman amendment, followed by a vote on the Edwards amendment at 
1:45.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a section of the 
trade adjustment language in this bill. I congratulate the managers for 
the hard work they put into bringing this bill forward. Trade 
adjustment is part of the three basic bills. There are four bills 
altogether, but I now address the three bills--the Andean trade bill, 
trade promotion authority, and trade adjustment.
  The trade adjustment language in this bill has some huge problems and 
sets off on a new policy course in a number of areas which I believe 
are extremely problematic and inappropriate. One of the issues it 
raises is that of how you deal with people who do not have health 
insurance. I do not want to speak specifically to that, but I want to 
allude to that. In this bill there is a brand new major entitlement 
which will say if you are put out of work, allegedly because of a trade 
event, you will have the right to get health insurance and have that 
health insurance paid for by the taxpayers, or 70 percent of it.

[[Page S4360]]

  That will create the anomalous situation, the really terrible 
situation that people who are working for a living, working hard, 
working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, and who do not have health insurance, 
will end up paying an increased tax burden to pay to subsidize the 
health insurance of somebody who does not have a job, is not working, 
and who is already getting significant unemployment benefits, training 
benefits, education benefits, and now will be getting very significant 
new health insurance benefits.

  The practical implications are significant, obviously. You are going 
to create two classes of citizenry in this country, one of which is the 
working American who does not have health insurance and the other is 
the nonworking American who does have health insurance. The person who 
is working is going to be scratching his head and saying: What am I 
doing? Why am I toiling all these hours to pay for something I cannot 
afford for myself for somebody who doesn't have a job and who may not 
get a job because they are getting such good benefits that getting a 
job they may lose those benefits? So it creates some serious problems.
  Basically, it is opening the door to a massive expansion of an 
entitlement program in the area of health care. That worries me a lot. 
If we are going down that road, we should do it in the context of 
comprehensive health care reform. We should look at all the people who 
do not have health insurance in this country, not just a slice of 
people, and make sure all those folks get a fair shot at health 
insurance, not just a small slice.
  But the more problematic, from the standpoint of policy, is this new 
concept called wage insurance, which is in the trade adjustment bill. 
Basically, we are going to pay people to work less productively is what 
this amounts to. This is sort of a French system of economics. We are 
going to say to someone: If you are out of a job because of a trade 
adjustment situation and you take another job where you earn less, the 
Federal Government will now come in and pay you the difference between 
what you made in the old job and what you make in the new job, up to 
$5,000. That creates a huge incentive for people to take a job where 
they are less productive, to take a job that they might enjoy more, 
which they might like more but which doesn't pay as much because 
everybody else in the country is going to pay them something to take 
that job.
  It is a management of the marketplace which undermines all the 
concepts we have in our country today of having money flow and having 
people work in their most efficient way in order to create the most 
productivity, in order to create the strongest economy.
  One of the geniuses of our economy is that we are resilient and 
flexible. If you look at what has happened to Japan over the last 10 
years, they have been in recession. Look at what has happened to France 
over the last 20 years and their productivity has essentially been 
flat. So their standard of living has not grown the way our standard of 
living has grown.
  Look at the country of Italy where if you get a job you get it for 
life. Again, you have low productivity growth and you have essentially 
a flat economy in the context of our economy.
  All these countries are functioning in a manner entirely different 
than ours because they basically create an economy where productivity 
is not rewarded, where efficiency is not rewarded, where having capital 
flow to its most efficient place is not rewarded--it is actually 
penalized--whereas in America, our genius as an economy has always been 
that we are a mobile, flexible economy where the money and the 
productivity and people's jobs flow to the place where they are going 
to receive their highest economic reward. We create incentives for 
people to go to work where they are going to get their highest economic 
reward. As a result, we rebound from economic slowdowns quickly and we 
have an incredible rate of productivity in this country--we have for 
the last few years--and we have economic growth.

  What this proposal does, essentially, is reverse course. It goes 
back. It takes the socialistic concept that the Government should pay 
you for not working, or at least for not working efficiently, and puts 
it in place. It is an idea that has been tried, of course. It is being 
tried. It is being used in many of our sister countries--France and 
Italy being the two best examples. But it is a system which has totally 
failed. It is a 1950s idea of economics which essentially said that the 
state can better manage the economy of a country than the marketplace. 
In its extreme, it essentially has productive citizens paying to have 
people who are doing less productive jobs stay in those jobs.
  The idea that when somebody loses his job where he is earning a good 
salary--let's say in a steel mill because that seems to be the industry 
most affected--and then that person looks around and says, I didn't 
like working in the steel mill, I am going to go out to the golf course 
where I can be a starter and get my free round of golf every day 
because that's what I would really like to do, that person, as a result 
of taking that job which he enjoys more but which pays significantly 
less, is going to be paid by all the other people in America who are 
working hard every day, maybe doing jobs they do not find that exciting 
but at least jobs at which they are being extremely productive.
  That person who goes to the golf course is going to be paid up to 
$5,000 for taking this job which pays less than what he was receiving 
as a steelworker.
  It is outrageous. It is incredible. It is a rejection of everything 
we conceive as marketplace economics as a country. And it opens the 
door to proposals and concepts which will significantly undermine our 
productivity as a society, which will lock in place job activity which 
is not producing but which is draining from the economic growth and 
will inevitably undermine our vitality and will end up costing us jobs.
  If a person is thrown out of a steel job and takes a job in some 
other position that pays less because that is the job they want or that 
is the job they can get, there are alternatives which we put in place 
to try to help that person improve their position. Under the trade 
adjustment assistance language that person gets more training, more 
education, more educational opportunities.
  Under trade adjustment assistance, that person gets longer 
unemployment benefits so they can look harder for the job they want. 
But that person--for taking a job where their income is less and 
probably, therefore, they are being less productive in a society that 
ties productivity to income to a large degree--surely should not get a 
stipend to take a job which pays less.
  It inverts the whole system of how we reward people in our society. 
We are rewarding someone for taking a job that pays less and saying: 
Here is $5,000 on top of whatever you are being paid. I can see a lot 
of small businesses, medium-sized businesses in this country that are 
marginal today where their employees could say, because they might be a 
small business where all the employees are participants, we are going 
to have to go out of business. Let's make sure we go out of business 
for a trade reason. Let's figure out some way to do that because we can 
move on and do something else and get $5,000 of assistance on top of 
whatever job we take.
  The unintended consequences, the perverse incentives are truly--well, 
they can't be anticipated, but we know they are going to be 
significant.
  This is one of the worst ideas I have seen come forward in this 
Congress, the idea that we are going to basically pay people to take 
lesser paying jobs. It is almost, on its face, a reason to reject this 
bill. When you couple it with some of the other problems with this 
bill, it becomes a heavy burden for those of us who support free trade 
to support a bill with this type of language.
  So I do intend, at some point, as we go forward, to offer a motion to 
strike this alleged wage insurance program. I hope Members will join me 
in rejecting this concept which can best be described as French 
economics.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4361]]

                Amendment No. 3419 To Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk which 
I call up for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendment is set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3419.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the principal negotiating objectives with respect 
                               to labor)

       On page 245, line 14, beginning with ``and'', strike all 
     through ``protection'' on line 18.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this amendment that I offer strikes 
27 words in the bill. These words are not many in number, as 
legislating goes, but they embrace, in their exclusion, a very 
important series of principles that are at stake. So let me read the 
words to you that would be struck. And I quote:

       No retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of 
     these rights or the right to establish domestic labor 
     standards and levels of environmental protection.

  I say, respectfully, to those who put these words in the bill, and 
reported it out of the Finance Committee, that these words are a 
mistake because they essentially cancel out this provision, this 
section in which they appear, which is one of the 13 principal trade 
negotiating objectives in this bill before us, and the only one dealing 
with labor and environmental protections. In effect, because of this 
language that this amendment would strike, this becomes the only 
objective in the bill that the bill itself says, in effect, ``we, the 
United States, will never enforce these portions of an agreement.'' And 
that is the section relating to domestic labor standards and levels of 
environmental protection.
  I do not understand why we would place such a self-defeating 
provision in legislation, to create a standard and then to frustrate 
any potential for realizing and implementing it.
  If this bill stated that we would not enforce an agreement we reach 
on trade and services, for instance--which happens to be the second 
principal trade negotiating objective in the bill--I am sure we would 
hear an outcry. And I would be part of that outcry.
  If we said in advance we would never seek to enforce an agreement 
that we might reach on intellectual property protections or anti-
corruption obligations or electronic commerce or agriculture, there 
would naturally be an outcry.
  So there is no reason why we would want to enter into agreements on 
any of these subjects while telling our trading partners in advance 
that we are not concerned about whether they are actually going to 
honor the commitments they make to us--in this case regarding labor and 
environmental protections. But that is precisely what we do in this 
part of this proposal that I would strike with this amendment.
  We say, in the pending bill, that we will never seek to enforce these 
labor and environmental standards, the agreements made by the parties 
to agreements. I find this not only illogical but inappropriate and 
wrong.
  Let me be clear, I am not here to propose that we only seek to 
enforce labor and environmental protections and not seek to enforce any 
other protections. This amendment proposes that we should have the 
power to enforce all of the provisions of these trade agreements that 
would come before Congress under the legislation before us, to enforce 
them equally, including labor and environmental protections. They 
should not be placed in a second class of objectives as stated in the 
bill.

  The pending bill already includes a clear statement in support of the 
equal enforcement principle I am advocating. That is the 12th principal 
negotiating objective. It states that we should ``seek provisions that 
treat United States principal negotiating objectives equally with 
respect to--the ability to resort to dispute settlement under the 
applicable agreement, the availability of equivalent dispute settlement 
procedures, and the availability of equivalent remedies.''
  Then let me read it again. The words I am striking with this 
amendment hope to say ``no retaliation'' may be authorized based on the 
exercise of these rights; that is, ``the right to establish domestic 
labor standards and levels of environmental protection.''
  My amendment simply conforms the rest of the bill to the objective 
stated in the 12th principal negotiating objective; that is, the 
availability of equivalent remedies: equal enforcement, equal standing, 
and no discrimination against the labor and environmental provisions of 
an agreement.
  I have an additional reason to strike the statement in the bill that 
``no retaliation'' may be authorized based on ``the right to establish 
domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' This 
enforcement exemption goes even further than the exemption I have just 
described.
  I read the language as exempting any labor and environmental standard 
a country chooses to set from any potential retaliation under this 
bill. That includes labor and environmental commitments of the country 
we might be negotiating with and that that country has specifically 
agreed to include in a trade agreement. It says, I fear, that any 
standard is fine with us, even if it conflicts with a standard that has 
specifically been set, negotiated, agreed to in the trade agreement 
that would be the subject of consideration by the Senate under the 
rules established by this TPA proposal.
  If countries can establish any domestic standards they wish to and no 
retaliation can be used regardless of what they do, they will be able 
to use that language to violate any commitment they have made or be 
able to bend and break every international standard without fear of 
consequences.
  For example, they will have an excuse to lower domestic standards to 
enhance their trade competitiveness, something nearly every trade 
agreement bars. This exemption makes a mockery of labor and 
environmental protections in trade agreements. It is an invitation to 
abuse, to sham agreements, and to evasion. That is why I move to strike 
it.
  The labor and environmental protections at issue are very mainstream. 
They express broadly held American values and broadly accepted American 
policies.
  Let me read to you some of the core labor standards set by the 
International Labor Organization. One is the freedom of association and 
the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. 
Another is the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. 
These aren't extreme requirements, these are basic humanitarian 
requirements, in some sense even beyond the normal conflict of labor/
management or often the conflict of labor/management negotiations. 
Third is the effective abolition of child labor.
  Does anyone wish to stand in this body, or anywhere else in America, 
and say we should not make clear that the powers of retaliation that 
are available for all the other principal trade objectives stated in 
the bill should not be available against a country that is guilty of 
child labor abuses?

  Finally, the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment 
and occupation. Again, this is the fourth of the core labor standards 
set by the International Labor Organization, obviously accepted--
enshrined, in fact--in amendments to our Constitution. It was certainly 
enacted explicitly in our time in a specific series of laws that have 
made real the promise of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in 
employment which we would naturally not want to stand idly by and see 
violated in countries with which we were negotiating agreements.
  Is there any reason we would not want to enforce those values in a 
trade agreement? Is there something protectionist about those values? 
Is there some reason we would want to invite countries to violate those 
standards with impunity and provide no enforcement mechanism or remedy 
should they do so?
  I would ask the same about the environmental protections here. Is 
there some reason we would not want to support clean air and clean 
water in countries with which we are negotiating, some reason we would 
want to tolerate

[[Page S4362]]

exposing workers, for instance, to destructive, dangerous toxic 
chemicals when that country in an agreement has made commitments not to 
tolerate these low environmental standards?
  In its current form, this provision I wish to strike with my 
amendment cancels out the very provisions on labor and environmental 
protections it seeks to legislate as one of the 13 principal trade 
negotiating objectives. It does so uniquely, putting this non-
retaliation language only in this particular section dealing with labor 
and environment and not in any of the other 13 principal trade 
negotiating objectives.
  The issue I wish to raise with my amendment is simple. The question 
is, will we seek, whether we want to preserve within our Government the 
power to stand by our word and compel countries that are trade 
negotiating partners with us to stand by their word, to keep their 
promises when it comes to labor and environmental commitments, promises 
that they will have negotiated and made in the agreements we would sign 
and bring before the Congress for ratification? Or are we going to 
allow these agreements to be rendered meaningless and unenforceable, 
even before we enter into them?
  The amendment I propose this afternoon says we will hold our trading 
partners to the commitments they make in trade agreements. We are not 
legislating to reach out and tell them exactly what to do within their 
countries. We are saying, if they make an agreement with us regarding 
environmental protection or labor standards, they have to keep that 
promise. We will expect them to do no less.
  This is a critical part of the proposal before us, making trade 
agreements that are not only in the interest of commerce and economic 
growth but that are consistent with some of our most fundamental values 
and certainly consistent with a wide range of our laws adopted at the 
Federal, State, and local levels.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Lieberman 
motion to strike. I welcome the opportunity to debate it because this 
motion goes right to the heart of the constitutional system that we 
cherish in America, and from which we benefit every single day.
  Let me explain this amendment and what it would do, where it came 
from, and why it is relevant. For the first time under fast-track 
authority, we in this bill will be bringing labor and environmental 
issues into the trade negotiation process. In 2000, the Clinton 
Administration negotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan that for 
the first time brought both labor and the environment fully into the 
process. Now, based on the Jordan Agreement, the bill before the Senate 
would direct our negotiators in all future trade agreements to 
establish international dispute resolution tribunals to proctor and 
enforce trade agreements in which labor and environmental issues are 
involved. And this will probably become the standard for our trade 
agreements with the rest of the world.
  The bill approved by the House of Representatives and then the Senate 
Finance Committee sets out our negotiating objectives of the United 
States with respect to labor and the environment. These objectives are 
pretty clear, and I want to take the time to read them because I want 
to be absolutely sure everybody understands this issue.
  Section 2102(b)(11) says that the principal trade negotiating 
objectives of the United States with respect to labor and the 
environment are:

       To ensure that a party to a trade agreement with the United 
     States does not fail to effectively enforce its environmental 
     or labor laws through a sustained or recurring course of 
     action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between the 
     United States and that party after entry into force of a 
     trade agreement between those countries.

  This objective is what we would be trying to achieve, and it would be 
binding on both the United States and on the trading partner with whom 
we are negotiating.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the first sentence of the 
Constitution of the United States--article I, section 1--sets forth the 
legislative power, and sets it squarely in the Congress:

       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  It is the first sentence of our Constitution, so we are not fooling 
around here. In other words, there is no question under the American 
constitutional system that Congress has the power to make the law.
  But now we are entering into trade agreements that for the first time 
will involve passing judgment on our labor and environmental laws and 
standards. In light of the constitutional guarantees of article I, 
section 1, the House and Senate authors of the trade promotion 
authority bill before us decided to set out what our rights are as 
Americans with regard to our labor and environmental standards. It 
therefore goes on to say that our objectives also are:

       (B) to recognize that parties to the trade agreement retain 
     the right to exercise discretion with respect to 
     investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance 
     matters and to make decisions regarding the allocation of 
     resources to enforcement with respect to other labor or 
     environmental matters determined to have higher priorities, 
     and to recognize that a country is effectively enforcing its 
     laws if a course of action or inaction reflects a reasonable 
     exercise of such discretion, or results from a bona fide 
     decision regarding the allocation of resources.

  It then goes on to say, and this is the sentence that Senator 
Lieberman would strike:

       And no retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise 
     of these rights or the right to establish domestic labor 
     standards and levels of environmental protection.

  What does this mean? It means that we are going to enter into trade 
agreements, and that in those trade agreements we are going to try to 
promote labor and environmental protection, but that we will maintain 
our sovereignty with regard to writing our own labor and environmental 
laws, and to exercising Executive Branch power to enforce the law 
through the promulgation and enforcement of regulations. It means that 
in exercising our rights under the Constitution of the United States, 
we could not be subject to retaliation by our trading partners.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that the concern about retaliation 
is not an idle concern. It is the kind of problem that we increasingly 
will run into as we move further into a world where trade crosses 
borders and where international agreements increasingly bind the United 
States. The question as we move into this world comes down to this: 
What rights will we preserve as a sovereign country?

  If we struck the protective language approved by the House and by 
Senate Finance, we would be passing the decisionmaking authority on 
domestic labor and environmental issues from the Congress and the 
President to international tribunals. Those tribunals--not Congress and 
the President--would be the ones to pass judgment as to whether changes 
in U.S. labor and environmental laws represented a failure to 
effectively enforce our laws. The tribunals, on which Americans are a 
minority, would be the ones making those decisions. And if they found 
that U.S. actions were wanting, they could authorize retaliation 
against American exporters--all on the basis of the exercise of our 
legitimate constitutional rights.
  Let me give you some real examples that exemplify this concern. In 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, we did not include Jordan-like 
labor and environmental provisions, but we did have side agreements on 
labor and environment. Those side agreements, which were negotiated 
after President Clinton came into office, include an enforcement 
mechanism that allows parties to file claims alleging failure by a 
NAFTA country to effectively enforce its labor and environmental laws.
  The NAFTA experience provides several examples that go to the very 
heart of this sovereignty issue. For example, a complaint was filed 
alleging that the United States was not effectively enforcing the 
Endangered Species Act--namely, in protecting the spotted owl--and 
therefore was benefitting the United States in trade.
  If the protective clause of the pending bill were stricken by the 
Lieberman motion, and the bill became law, who would make the 
determination as to whether we are protecting

[[Page S4363]]

the spotted owl if a similar complaint were filed under that new law? 
These decisions would be made not by the American Congress, not by the 
American President, not by the American courts, but by an international 
dispute resolution tribunal, the majority of whose members would not be 
American. That tribunal would decide whether or not we are protecting 
the spotted owl and, therefore, whether or not we are enforcing the 
Endangered Species Act. And if they concluded that we were not, they 
would have the power to order retaliation against American manufactured 
products and American agricultural products.
  Let me give another example. Some years ago we passed a rider to an 
appropriations bill that eliminated private remedies for salvage timber 
sales. Following the constitutional process, that rider was approved by 
the Senate, approved by the House, and signed into law by the 
President. Subsequently, a complaint against the United States was 
filed under NAFTA that alleged that by passing that rider, we had 
failed to effectively enforce our environmental laws.

  If this bill were approved without the protective clause, due to the 
Lieberman motion to strike, then an international tribunal--only one of 
whom would be an American--would make a determination as to whether or 
not, in exercising our right to enact laws regarding federal timber 
policy, we should be subject to retaliation against our manufactured 
products, our agricultural products, or our services, or anything else 
we sell on the world market.
  Let me give one more example. I could cite examples that involve 
apple growers, and egg workers, but let me talk about one that involves 
Connecticut. A complaint was filed under NAFTA against the United 
States by the Yale Law School Worker's Rights Project alleging failure 
to effectively enforce U.S. minimum wage and overtime protections.
  If this bill were approved as modified by the Lieberman amendment, we 
would face a situation where the decision as to whether or not the 
United States was enforcing fair labor standards would have been 
determined not by a Federal court sitting in Connecticut but by an 
international tribunal. In the case of NAFTA, that tribunal would 
include only one American among the three judges. In the case of a 
trade agreement with Europe, that tribunal making a determination about 
whether or not we are enforcing our laws would include mostly 
Europeans. I submit that we do not want to put ourselves in that 
position.
  The issue here is pure and simple: it is sovereignty. If we strike 
this protective provision, we will be putting ourselves in a position 
where we can change our laws but we will be subject to a judgment by 
non-Americans that in making that change we gained an unfair trade 
advantage and can be penalized for it. Determinations about whether or 
not we are enforcing labor and environmental laws would be transferred 
from Congress and the President to international tribunals.
  I believe it is critical that we preserve American sovereignty. I 
cannot believe that the American people, if they were alerted to this 
issue, would support putting decisions on labor and environmental 
issues in the hands of international tribunals rather than in the hands 
of American courts, the Congress, and the President.
  Let me give a final example. I know many people in the Senate did not 
vote to open ANWR, but had Congress made a decision to open ANWR based 
on national security concerns, under the provisions of this bill as 
proposed to be amended by Senator Lieberman, we could see retaliation 
imposed on cotton growers, computer manufacturers, or any other 
exporter in the United States. Based on a complaint filed before an 
international tribunal, the majority of whose members are not 
Americans, we could see a decision that we benefited in trade by 
opening ANWR, and therefore, that we could be subject to sanction. A 
tribunal could not overturn our action in making the law, but it could 
authorize retaliation in the form of punitive tariffs against American 
manufacturers, agricultural producers, and service providers. That is 
something I do not believe we want to do.
  I want submit for the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau 
Federation that is dated today:

       The American Farm Bureau Federation urges your opposition 
     to the Lieberman motion to strike language in the Trade 
     Promotion Authority bill that would safeguard U.S. 
     sovereignty and protect U.S. agricultural producers from 
     retaliatory tariffs.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2002.
     Hon. Phil Gramm,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gramm: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     urges your opposition to the Lieberman motion to strike 
     language in the Trade Promotion Authority bill that would 
     safeguard U.S. sovereignty and protect U.S. agricultural 
     producers from retaliatory tariffs.
       As approved by the House and reported by the Senate Finance 
     Committee, the TPA bill contains a protective clause that 
     will ensure that Congress and the President may make and 
     enforce U.S. labor and environment laws and can protect U.S. 
     farmers and ranchers from the threat of retaliation. Without 
     this critical protection, U.S. agriculture could be targeted 
     by our trading partners solely on the basis of the normal 
     exercise of Congressional lawmaking.
       As you know, U.S. farmers and ranchers worked hard to 
     ensure that exports markets around the world would be open to 
     our products. If successful, the Lieberman motion to strike 
     would effectively allow international panels to authorize 
     retaliation against the United States for exercising its 
     sovereign discretion on U.S. labor and environmental laws.
       For these reasons, we urge your opposition to the Lieberman 
     amendment to the Trade Promotion Authority bill.
           Sincerely,
                                               Richard W. Newpher,
                                               Executive Director.


                Amendment No. 3417 to Amendment No. 3401

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour has come 
for 4 minutes to be evenly divided on the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Is the Edwards amendment subject to a point of order under 
the Budget Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the Chair does not have 
information as to the specifics of that order.
  Mr. GRAMM. I raise a point of order that the amendment violates 
section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not in order while time 
remains for debate on the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. I will reserve until the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for no more than 3 minutes to 
respond to my colleague, the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I understand the order was given to go 
to the Edwards amendment at 1:45 p.m. I ask that the Senator from 
Connecticut withhold his comments at this point.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my friend from Montana if he would be certain 
that I have an opportunity, before the vote, to respond to the Senator 
from Texas.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to 4 minutes of debate evenly divided on the Edwards amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Edwards amendment and, frankly, I urge my good friend from Texas to 
also support it and refrain from raising a point of order or otherwise 
opposing the Edwards amendments. They are very good amendments. They 
help this bill. I am quite surprised, frankly, that the Senator from 
Texas was having objections to them. I am not going to use all the 
remaining couple minutes we have. I will let my friend and colleague 
from North Carolina make those statements, but I strongly urge us to 
work this out so we can get these Edwards amendments passed.
  I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

[[Page S4364]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, I point out for my colleagues that both 
the ranking Republican Member and the chairman of the committee support 
these amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as 
cosponsors: Senators Hollings, Miller, Cleland, Lincoln, and Allen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam President, this amendment does two things. First, 
it says our trade negotiators have to stop entering into trade 
agreements that hurt North Carolina textile workers and that are unfair 
to North Carolina textile workers. North Carolina's textile workers are 
entitled to a level playing field, and that is what this amendment is 
designed to give them--no better, no worse than anybody else, just a 
level playing field.
  Second, it makes sure that workers who have lost their jobs because 
of trade have an opportunity to get the education and the training they 
need to get another job at as good or better wages.
  At its base, that is what this amendment is about. The amendment 
serves those two purposes. It is a critical amendment for the textile 
workers in my State of North Carolina where, over the course of the 
last 5 years, over 100,000 workers have lost their jobs. These people 
have been hurt by trade. We need to give them an opportunity to get 
their lives back in shape. That is what this amendment is about: No. 1, 
making sure any trade agreement that is negotiated is fair and fair to 
North Carolina textile workers; No. 2, for those people who have lost 
their jobs, families who have lost their jobs, making sure they have an 
opportunity to get back on their feet and do what they have always 
done--work and help to support their family and give their kids a 
chance for a better life.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as the chairman of 
the committee and the ranking Republican Member do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Two minutes remain in opposition to the Edwards amendment.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I will not speak at length on the Edwards amendment, but I 
would like my colleagues to note that under this amendment, we once 
again would be expanding trade adjustment assistance benefits. The 
Congressional Budget Office, for some inexplicable reason, is saying 
that the Baucus-Grassley amendment--already itself subject to a point 
of order--has some savings in the outyears, even though those savings 
are grossly smaller than the new expenditures. Therefore, they are 
saying that because the program put in place by this amendment would 
take 18 to 24 months, it would not be subject to a point of order.
  It sounds to me as if people are decided on this amendment. But under 
this amendment we once again would be adding additional benefits for up 
to 26 weeks for people who are not now receiving trade adjustment 
assistance. It seems to me at the very moment we are spending Social 
Security trust funds, we should care about preserving funds. But nobody 
seems to care. Yet if we were debating giving someone a new tax cut, 
there would be a great hue and cry that we were taking money away from 
the Social Security trust fund. Yet here, when we would be adding more 
benefits and creating more programs, nobody seems to care.
  I am opposed to this amendment. I hope some will join me in voting 
against it. I don't know how we are ever going to pay for all these new 
spending programs at the very moment when we are running a deficit and 
spending Social Security surplus. Everyone seems joyful to create a new 
program to benefit someone. But at some point, we have to draw the 
line.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remains.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3417.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 3417) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are making better progress this 
afternoon. I really appreciate the two managers and the work they are 
doing to move it along. I hope we can line up a series of amendments, 
hopefully with time agreements. I know there is an interest on the part 
of both sides to accommodate as many amendments as possible. The best 
way to do that is with time agreements. I encourage all Senators to 
agree to a time limit on their amendments so that we can move through 
additional amendments.
  There have been questions about the schedule. To accommodate an event 
I know a number of our Republican colleagues want to attend tonight, we 
will not be in late tonight, but I do hope, for those who could offer 
their amendments and have some debate on the amendments without having 
a vote, we might do that in the interest of moving the legislation 
forward. We should not just look at tonight as a lost opportunity. To 
the extent Senators can come to the floor and offer amendments, we can 
certainly stack some of those votes tomorrow morning.
  It is also our expectation that we will not be in session during the 
gold medal ceremony tomorrow afternoon. That will last about an hour 
from 2 to 3. We need to make the most of the time that is available to 
us tonight and tomorrow, both before and after the ceremony.
  Senators should know that we will be in session on Friday and we can 
expect votes Friday morning. We will try to move this legislation along 
and accommodate as many Senators who have amendments as possible, but 
they need to help us by agreeing to time limits.
  I know there has been some concern for the May 16 deadline. That is 
tomorrow. The Andean Trade Preference Act expires tomorrow. We do know 
that the administration has the authority to move that date, should 
they choose to do so. I hope they will consider doing that given the 
fact that tomorrow is May 16. We will move this expeditiously. We will 
do all we can to get this job done. Nobody wants to pass ATPA more than 
I do. I do think it is important for the administration and for all of 
us to work together to ensure

[[Page S4365]]

that we leave no question about our determination to complete our work 
on ATPA and ensure there is continuity when it comes to the application 
of the trade legislation and our determination to ensure that that 
continuity is created in law.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe the majority leader is correct as to the May 16 
date, that the administration does have the ability to change that day, 
because it was set, as far as an agreement, with the chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee in the other body. The fact remains, there is 
great uncertainty in these countries. They don't know how the Congress 
of the United States works. They don't know that May 16 isn't a drop 
dead date. It does not remove the compelling aspect of us reauthorizing 
ATPA as quickly as possible.
  I hope the majority leader will consider, if there are further 
problems--and I hope not--that we would split that bill out and pass 
it, which would be overwhelming, 98 or 99 votes. The President of Peru 
has been up here. There is enormous uncertainty in already unstable 
economic situations in those countries. I still don't think it is right 
for us to unnecessarily tie ATPA to the other legislation. I appreciate 
the majority leader's appreciation for that as well. I thank the 
majority leader.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will just say that the Senator from 
Arizona is absolutely right. If all else fails, we have no other choice 
but to split it off. We would do so if we were not able to make 
progress, which is why I started out as I did urging Senators to come 
to the floor. I know Senator Lieberman and others are prepared to offer 
amendments this afternoon. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have 
accelerated the consideration of these amendments. As always, Senator 
Reid has been on the floor to help serve as a motivator in getting the 
job done.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I would note, while the leader has been engaged in other 
business during this last vote, I have checked with the two managers. 
It is my understanding within the next few minutes, next 15 minutes or 
so, there will be a motion to table Senator Lieberman's amendment. He 
knows that. Following that, we are in the process of working out an 
agreement with the Senator from New Hampshire who will offer an 
amendment. The Senator from Illinois will offer an amendment--maybe in 
inverse order. They have both agreed to time limits. We should have 
that done by the time the next vote occurs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to echo the colloquy between the Senator 
from Arizona and the majority leader. It is true that the Secretary, 
pursuant to the discretion he is given under the law, did extend the 
period with respect to the Andean tariffs to May 15. It is also true 
that he has the authority to extend it even longer. It is also true 
that the last time this issue arose, some in the administration 
suggested to Chairman Thomas in the House that this would only be 
extended once. We are very close to passing the trade package in the 
Senate, getting to conference very quickly. I urge the administration 
to extend the period for a little bit longer.
  Having said that, it is important to remind all Senators that the 
underlying bill is drafted to make benefits retroactive to December 4, 
2001. So even if the period the administration has suggested expires 
and we would move past that period, nevertheless all collected tariffs 
would be returned retroactive to December 4, 2001. It is our hope to 
get this passed very quickly.
  I say all that so it is clear that we have pressure but all is not 
lost if we don't move to get it all passed within the next days or the 
next few weeks. We are working together to solve the problem which has 
been mentioned.


                           Amendment No. 3419

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe my friend from Texas would 
like to enter a letter into the Record. I yield to him.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank our dear colleague from 
Connecticut.
  I would like to enter a letter, and at that point I would like a 
minute toward the end to sort of sum up. I have a letter here from the 
three principal Democrat cosponsors of the trade promotion authority 
bill in the House, Cal Dooley, Bill Jefferson, and John Tanner. This 
letter is important because it discusses the very provision of the bill 
related to no retaliation based on sovereign rights, an issue which is 
being discussed here with an effort to strike this language. Since they 
discuss it directly, I would like to commend it to my colleagues.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, December 10, 2001.
     Senator Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: We were happy to hear that you and 
     Senator Grassley reached an agreement regarding trade 
     promotion authority legislation. We have spoken many times on 
     this issue. As you know, many of your TPA concepts are 
     reflected in the House-passed legislation.
       We are particularly proud of the progress this legislation 
     makes on labor and environmental issues. The legislation 
     passed by the House incorporates fully the enforceable 
     standard on labor and the environment in the Jordan Free 
     Trade Agreement, and includes objectives that will allow 
     negotiators to seek and obtain all of the commitments in the 
     Jordan FTA. Moreover, by including the enforceable Jordan 
     standards and provisions promoting increased standards on 
     worker, child labor, and environmental protections, the 
     legislation reflects the principle that countries should 
     improve--not roll back standards for labor and environment.
       Last week, you had inquired about the principal negotiating 
     objective on labor and the environment, in particular, 
     section 2(b)(11)(B). Subparagraph (B) provides that one of 
     the principal negotiating objectives will be: to recognize 
     that parties to a trade agreement retain the right to 
     exercise discretion with respect to investigatory, 
     prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance matters and to make 
     decisions regarding the allocation of resources to 
     enforcement with respect to other labor or environmental 
     matters determined to have higher priorities, and to 
     recognize that a country is effectively enforcing its trade 
     laws if a course of actions or inaction reflects a reasonable 
     exercise of such discretion, or results from a bona fide 
     decision regarding the allocation of resources and no 
     retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these 
     rights or the right to establish domestic labor standards and 
     levels of protection.
       You had asked about the meaning of the last phrase, which 
     was added to section 2(b)(11)(B) as a part of the rule 
     providing for consideration of H.R. 3005: ``and no 
     retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these 
     rights or the right to establish domestic labor standards and 
     levels of protection.'' This phrase, which is limited to 
     subparagraph (B), clarifies what was already the case in the 
     TPA legislation that was reported out of the Ways & Means 
     Committee, and reflects the standard set forth in the Jordan 
     FTA. That is, countries have the right to exercise discretion 
     needed to enforce regulations regarding to health, worker 
     safety and the environment without fear of retaliation for a 
     reasonable exercise of that discretion.
       We hope this is helpful to you. We look forward to working 
     with you to pass this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Cal Dooley.
     Bill Jefferson.
     John Tanner.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I want to come back to respond to some of the things my friend and 
colleague from Texas said in opposition to my amendment.
  I do want to state for the record what I hope is clear, which is that 
I support the underlying bill. I support the trade promotion authority, 
so-called fast track. I believe one of the great lessons we learned in 
the 1990s, under President Clinton, was that trade is a pillar of 
economic growth in our country.
  We only have so many people in our country. There is only so big a 
market. We have to open up markets around the world to create more jobs 
at home. We have to find other places around the world to sell our 
products.
  We have obligations, and that generally creates not only economic 
growth, more jobs, more wealth but improves our country generally. So I 
support the underlying bill.
  This amendment I have offered deletes words in the pending bill which 
I

[[Page S4366]]

believe are very unfair and discriminate against the provisions of the 
bill that call for some concern and consideration of labor standards 
and environmental objectives in the agreements.
  The statement of my friend from Texas in opposition to my amendment 
fascinated me, surprised me, and I say with all respect, I do not 
believe it is real. I do not believe his concerns are justified by the 
terms of the legislation or what would be normal trade practice. Let me 
speak to this.
  The amendment strikes language that is unique to one of the 13 
principal trade objectives in the bill that deals with labor standards 
and environmental protection. The language is unique and says:

       No retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of 
     rights of discretion that are uniquely given with regard to 
     labor and environmental standards and the right to establish 
     domestic labor standards and levels of environmental 
     protection.''

  In essence, we are saying to those with whom we enter into a trade 
agreement that in regard to commitments they make that affect labor 
standards or environmental protection in their country, we will not 
have the capacity to enforce those promises they have made. That was 
the concern I had about the pending bill that motivated my amendment.

  The Senator from Texas has a very different response. He is worried 
that foreign nations may retaliate against us for our failure to keep 
our promises regarding labor standards and environmental protection. 
That thought never struck me. I must admit, it never struck me because 
our standards are higher, generally speaking, than most of the nations 
with which we negotiate, so I could not conceive they would want to 
retaliate against us.
  Also, remember the obligations that are imposed on a party to a trade 
agreement are set in that agreement. They are agreed to by the parties. 
We would not be held to fulfill any commitments regarding labor and the 
environment that we and they did not make in the agreement. The same is 
true of our foreign negotiating partners and of us.
  I want to respond to, I guess, what we used to call in law school, 
since my friend from Texas mentioned my law school, a ``slippery 
slope'' argument. If the United States commits to enforce the 
Endangered Species Act or a labor standard is applied to a particular 
law school that happens to be in New Haven, which I went to, the United 
States would be bound by those commitments. Those would be pledges we 
would have made.
  If the United States agrees to enforce every labor and environmental 
statute we have on our books and makes that agreement in a trade 
agreement--I cannot imagine we would make such an agreement, but if we 
did--we would be bound by that commitment.
  The rights we give to others must be found in the agreement we 
ratify. No foreign country will have free-range opportunity to 
challenge any action or inaction we take with regard to labor or 
environmental protections.
  For instance, the trade negotiation objective for foreign 
investment--I use this as an example; it is one of the other 13 
principal trade negotiation objectives in the bill--calls for 
negotiation of agreements that reduce or eliminate exceptions to the 
principle of national treatment, freeing the transfer of funds relating 
to investments, et cetera.
  If we reach an agreement where we and our trading partners commit to 
``reduce or eliminate exceptions to the principle of national 
treatment'' that is in the bill, that is the commitment that each party 
has the right to seek to enforce. That is in the agreement.
  Countries, again, have no free-wheeling right to challenge any U.S. 
action or inaction concerning foreign investments; certainly no right 
to rewrite our laws. We can only be held to what we have promised to do 
in the agreement, just as the foreign country can only be held to that.
  Foreign countries' rights are set and limited by the terms of the 
agreement we negotiate. Our own standards, again, with regard to labor 
and environmental protection, are almost always higher than the foreign 
nations with which we are negotiating. The agreements focus on trying 
to slightly raise the standards of less developed countries. That is 
what we are all about and about which some have been concerned.
  Second, this trade objective focused on labor and environment is 
unique in another regard in this bill. My amendment takes out the part 
that prohibits retaliation for any reason. It does not eliminate any of 
the rest of section (B) of this part--I believe it is trade negotiating 
objective No. 11.
  What does the rest of it do? It does something unique in this bill. 
The 11th principal negotiating objective is already qualified in ways 
not applicable to any other trade negotiating objectives. That makes it 
even more important that we retain the power to enforce these 
commitments, which my amendment would do with regard to trade in 
services--these are other negotiating objectives--intellectual 
property, agriculture, and other subjects. Compliance of the parties is 
strictly enforced. No excuses are permitted; no discretion is granted. 
If there is a violation, the parties are held strictly liable.

  With regard to labor and environmental commitments, the pending bill 
already states that noncompliance can be tolerated under certain 
circumstances. Parties are granted the right to ``exercise discretion 
with respect to investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and 
compliance matters,'' and they are granted the right to ``make 
decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement with 
respect to other labor and environmental matters determined to have 
higher priorities.''
  This discretion and these decisions must be reasonable and bona fide 
according to the bill. It explicitly states that we ``recognize that a 
country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course of action or 
inaction reflects a reasonable exercise of such discretion, or results 
from a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources.''
  We do not see language about discretion or allocation of resources 
applied to any other section in the bill--not to the services section, 
not to the intellectual property section, not to the agricultural 
section, not to any other section.
  Madam President, I am, in fact, troubled by the inclusion of this 
language regarding such discretion as it applies to labor and 
environmental protections. I worry that it is a bit open-ended, perhaps 
ambiguous. But despite those misgivings, the language does come 
verbatim from the United States-Jordan trade agreement. We granted that 
discretion in that agreement. Therefore, that is why the language has 
been picked up in the bill and I do not move to strike it. The language 
to prohibit any retaliatory action does not come from the Jordan 
Agreement. It is something new and it says essentially that we are not 
going to hold the other party to its promises and, in that sense, 
viewing this from the perspective of the Senator from Texas, they 
cannot hold us to our promises.
  That is not the kind of country we are. That is not the kind of 
Congress I believe we are.
  Why include in this bill a negotiating objective that contains its 
own negation? Why include fine print that essentially says we do not 
mean what we have said, and we do not care to hold the foreign country 
into which we have entered a trade agreement to what they have said?
  The issue is simple: Do the commitments made in these trade 
agreements regarding labor and environment--our commitments and their 
commitments--mean something?
  I am pleased again to say that the U.S. is much more likely to have 
higher standards and be committed to honoring those commitments. So I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which I think 
improves the bill and still leaves a lot of discretion in the 
enforcement of these labor and environmental sections of this pending 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. First, I express appreciation to the Senator from New 
Hampshire for allowing us to go forward with the unanimous consent 
agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Lieberman 
amendment No. 3419, Senator Durbin be recognized to offer his amendment 
regarding TPA; that there be 90 minutes for debate in relation the 
amendment, equally divided in the usual

[[Page S4367]]

form, prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have the highest regard for the 
Senator from Connecticut and his adherence to provisions to protect the 
environment. I do not know who has worked as hard as he or as effective 
as he in working to support measures to help not only the Nation's but 
the world's environment. However, I strongly oppose his amendment and I 
will say why.
  First, the provisions in the underlying bill are a dramatic 
improvement to protect the American environment overseas as compared 
with current law, any other fast-track bill. It is a major step 
forward. For example, it incorporates the basic provisions of the 
Jordan agreement, provides no derogation, that is, neither country will 
derogate, will reduce, the environmental protection that has an effect 
on trade. That is a major step forward.
  I cannot overemphasize how important it is to have those Jordan 
standards in the underlying trade agreement, that is, the fast-track 
agreement. It is incredible. I am, frankly, surprised to be saying at 
this point that those provisions are already in the bill because it was 
such a hard battle to get them.
  In addition, this is the first time that the environment has been 
made a principal negotiating objective. It is the first time the 
environment was given priority to other matters. It is the first time 
the multilateral environmental agreements are recognized, the so-called 
MEAs, that is, to protect the ozone, for example. That is a big first 
step. It is also the first time efforts have been made to improve the 
ability of other countries to enforce their environmental laws. So it 
is important not to just talk about this subject in the abstract but to 
compare it with what is in the underlying bill. The underlying bill 
goes a tremendous way to improving the environment.

  This reminds me of the metaphysical question: How many angels are 
there on the head of a pin? That debate has gone on for years. We do 
not know how many angels there are on the head of a pin. It is a 
metaphysical question as to the meaning of life and its existence. It 
is also unknowable.
  To be honest, that is what this amendment is, and I will explain what 
I mean. I take a slightly different tack than my good friend from 
Texas. I think the amendment does nothing, either way, with respect to 
protecting the environment. It is, frankly, poorly drafted. It is 
ambiguous. It is hard to say what is meant by it. So I say if we 
already have strong provisions to protect the environment, why add 
something that takes or does not take away a provision which is 
ambiguous and redundant, an argument made either way?
  However, the main point is, this fast-track bill is the result of 
very intensely negotiated positions and it is in the balance. If this 
amendment passes, I fear for the life of this bill in the Senate. This 
is a killer amendment, as strange as that may sound.
  I said earlier, this is basically a metaphysical question: How many 
angels are on the head of a pin? Why would that be a killer amendment? 
I grant that is another metaphysical question. That is another very 
strange situation we find ourselves in, but I must say that it does. 
This is an amendment which, if it passes--first, it has no practical 
effect, has no substantive effect, but it has, unfortunately, a strong 
sort of political effect within this body.
  I support the protection of the Senator from Connecticut of the 
environment, but this is one amendment which, frankly, does not further 
protect the environment and, if passed, is going to weaken this bill.
  In a moment I am going to move to table, but I am first going to 
recognize my friend from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I will be very quick. The Senator from 
Connecticut asks us: What is wrong in being held to our promises? What 
is wrong in fulfilling our commitments? There is nothing wrong with it. 
But the real question is who should make the judgment as to whether we 
have fulfilled our commitments and holding to our promises. Should 
those judgments be made by the Congress, the President, and our Federal 
courts, or should it be made by international tribunals?
  If we could divide the question so that we could impose these 
judgments on our trading partners, and in the process deny their 
sovereignty, I think that might find some favor around her. But the 
problem is that the objectives in this bill apply to us as well. 
Therefore, this is not an environmental question. It is not a labor 
question. It is a sovereignty question.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to table the Lieberman amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and the nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Warner
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Parliamentary inquiry: Has the motion to reconsider been 
made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has just moved to 
reconsider.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding on the Edwards 
amendment there was no motion to reconsider and motion to lay on the 
table in that regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the Edwards 
amendment, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, is recognized to offer his amendment.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold, I say to the chairman and the 
ranking member, Senator Gregg has agreed to offer his amendment upon 
the completion of the vote on the Durbin amendment. He would lay down 
that amendment tonight. There would be debate as long as anyone wanted 
to speak tonight. And in the morning there would be an hour and a half 
prior to a vote on that amendment.

[[Page S4368]]

  We will have something written up so that the minority can review it 
so that we can see if there are any problems with it. That is what we 
are trying to do. There would be a vote tomorrow morning around 11:30, 
something like that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if that is a 
unanimous consent request, I don't think we need to have anything 
written up--with no second degrees.
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent request 
before the Senate?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will withhold, I ask that the unanimous 
consent agreement then be effectuated with the Senator's addition that 
there would be no second-degree amendments in order.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator restate the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, upon 
disposition of the Durbin amendment, Senator Gregg be recognized to 
offer an amendment which will strike the wage insurance portion of the 
underlying substitute amendment; that the amendment be debated tonight; 
on tomorrow, when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill at 10 
a.m., there be 90 minutes remaining for debate in relation to the Gregg 
amendment, with the time on Thursday equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form, with no second-degree amendment in order, nor to any 
language which may be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                Amendment No. 3422 To Amendment No. 3401

(Purpose: To provide alternative fast-track trade negotiating authority 
               to the President, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3422 to amendment No. 3401.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have an hour and 
a half to debate the amendment equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to, during this opening period of time, try 
to lay out for my colleagues in the Senate the reason why I am offering 
this amendment.
  Let me, first, give accolades to the Senators from Montana and Iowa, 
Mr. Baucus and Mr. Grassley, for their hard work on this underlying 
legislation. This is not an easy issue. It is an issue that is 
extremely complicated. It is one I know they have devoted their efforts 
to in a very good-faith way for a long period of time.
  I disagree with one of the fundamental principles of their bill, and 
that is why I am offering the amendment. I hope during the course of 
this debate to engage my colleagues in a discussion about their vision 
of trade and the difference between the Baucus-Grassley bill and the 
Durbin amendment.
  There are some Senators who will come to the floor to discuss the 
trade issue but have never voted for a trade agreement in their entire 
congressional careers. That is their right. They are representing 
people in States and parts of the country that obviously concur with 
that point of view. But that is not my position.
  In my time that I have served in the House and Senate, I have voted 
for trade agreements--some of the most important, some of the biggest. 
I believe they have been in the best interest of the United States, 
though, clearly, they have brought both gain and pain to parts of the 
American economy.
  I have voted for NAFTA. As a Democrat in the House of Representatives 
voting for NAFTA, I heard a lot about that vote. I think it was the 
right vote. I think history will prove it. But I do not dispute for a 
moment that the agreement with Canada and Mexico has caused pain within 
our economy. Yet I think it reflects the end of the 20th century and 
the beginning of the 21st century where, more and more, countries are 
engaged in trade in an effort to not only share their comparative 
advantage in making a product but also to share certain values.
  When we look at the course of history, we in the United States 
believe that if you can combine democracy with an open market economy, 
you can strive for a winning combination.
  Expanding trade goes hand in glove with disseminating and 
distributing the values of America. That is why I have supported many 
of these trade agreements. Yet I have had difficulty with the concept 
before us today.
  This was once known as fast track. Now it is known as trade promotion 
authority. In my time on Capitol Hill, I have learned this: When you 
have to change the name of a program consistently, it is because the 
program is not very popular. If there is a program that is popular, 
such as Pell grants for college students, nobody has suggested changing 
the name. But in this case, fast-track authority was such a pejorative 
term that now in Congress its proponents have been banned from using 
it. Instead, they are supposed to talk about trade promotion authority. 
That tells me that the underlying concept is fraught with controversy. 
It should be.
  At issue in this debate--I will go to the specifics in a moment--is a 
most fundamental question for the Senate to consider. What is at issue 
is the power of the Senate and Congress under the Constitution and the 
protection of the rights and future of American businesses and labor. 
What we are being asked to do with this bill is to extend to a 
President, not just this President but future Presidents, a very 
significant authority. It is not only the authority to negotiate broad-
ranging trade agreements. It is the authority to bring back those 
agreements, propose significant changes to U.S. law, and require 
Congress to approve those changes on an up-or-down vote.
  This bill, the trade promotion authority, is going to tie the hands 
of Congress when it comes to considering trade agreements in the future 
with consequences that I believe could be substantial and even 
historic.
  This bill represents the most significant giveaway of congressional 
authority to the President in modern memory. Presidents throughout 
history have resisted congressional intrusion in their realm of 
government, in areas as fundamental as the declaration of war, treaty 
agreements with foreign nations, and the power to advise and consent. 
The tension between the executive branch, the President, and the 
legislative branch, Congress, has historically resulted in a 
confrontation at these desks.
  I am in the process of slowly reading an amazing book called ``The 
Master of the Senate'' by Robert Caro. It is his third volume in the 
biography of Lyndon Johnson, former President, Vice President, majority 
leader of the Senate, and Member of the House. I am reading it slowly 
because I appreciate it so much.
  In the first 100 pages, Robert Caro, with painstaking precision, goes 
through the history of this body. He starts by referring to a moment 
when he sat in one of our galleries and looked down at the semicircles 
of desks and reflected on what was going on in this Chamber, not just 
on that day but in the history of the United States, since we have been 
in the new Chamber of the Senate.
  The thing he noted was the role of the Senate, the preeminent role of 
the Senate in decisionmaking in America. If you take a look at our 
Constitution closely, Presidents come and go. The House of 
Representatives changes every 2 years. But in the Senate only a third 
of the membership stands for reelection every 2 years. The Senate is a 
continuing body under the Constitution with rules that are not 
abandoned, ratified again, but rules that continue time and time again.
  Because of the continuous nature of the Senate and its role in 
Congress, it has played a most important role in terms of power in the 
United States. The Senate more than any other institution is a check on 
the power of the President. The Senate is where the President's power 
may stop, when a decision is made by a majority here that he has gone 
too far.

[[Page S4369]]

  Presidents don't like that. There isn't a President who has ever 
served who wanted to go hat in hand to the Senate. In the same book, 
Caro talks about Teddy Roosevelt who, when he was elected President--
first appointed, then elected President--came to a position where he 
was pushing through patronage positions without clearing it with the 
Senate. They came down on him like a ton of bricks. He came up to the 
Senate, this bully leader of the United States, and was humbled by the 
Senate and its leadership and worked with them very closely from that 
point forward.
  Historically, the Senate has played that key role with trade 
promotion authority. We are saying this generation of Senators, this 
U.S. Congress is going to give power back to the President--our power, 
our authority, our responsibility. We are saying that when this 
President negotiates a trade agreement, we will not stand in judgment 
of that trade agreement in its specifics but only an up-or-down, yes-
or-no vote.
  That, to me, is a significant constitutional and historic decision. 
It is the reason that though I have voted in the past repeatedly for 
globalization and expanding trade and looking for new markets, I have 
resisted fast track and trade promotion authority because I cannot 
believe that a Senate in good conscience would walk away from its 
constitutional authority.
  The President makes the argument: Of course, you know these trade 
agreements are very complicated, and if you expect me to have to answer 
to the American people through the Senate for each and every provision, 
I will never reach a trade agreement.
  Excuse me, if you look at the history of the United States, many 
treaties which we have considered and were pretty complicated--I think 
of Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations; I think about the treaties 
relating to proliferation of nuclear weapons--were very complicated, 
but they came to the floor of the Senate. Historically, trade 
agreements came to the floor of the Senate, and we walked through them.
  Why do we want to do that? I represent a diverse State, strong in 
farming, manufacturing, and financial services. Certainly, when a trade 
agreement comes to the floor of the Senate, as a Senator from Illinois, 
I want to step back and look at these areas of the economy and how that 
President's idea of a good trade agreement actually has an impact on 
the jobs and the businesses of my State. I think that is part of my 
responsibility. Yet the trade promotion authority bill before us says 
the Senate is going to give away this authority.
  We are being asked to surrender the authority of the Congress to 
ratify trade agreements. This has been a dream of every President in 
our history and, of course, this President could negotiate a trade 
agreement with broad and far-reaching implications for farmers, 
workers, and businesses across the Nation without fear of scrutiny or 
close review by Congress.
  Instead, our role would be limited, our constitutional authority 
constrained to an up-or-down vote, a take-it-or-leave-it vote. Why? As 
the President said, they do not want Congress to meddle; they do not 
want Congress to interfere; they do not want Congress to delay. I 
believe that is wrong.
  Let me tell my colleagues specifically why I think we should consider 
this approach I am suggesting as an amendment to the underlying bill.
  The Baucus-Grassley bill does not clearly delineate the authority 
they are asking the Senate to give to the President and to future 
Presidents. Further, this legislation sidesteps many of today's key 
challenges in such a way that will diminish America's chances to 
negotiate solid trade agreements with other nations which would benefit 
our workers, farmers, and businesses.
  The process of economic integration across borders, often referred to 
as globalization, is the defining economic event of our era. 
Globalization has had and continues to have fundamental transformative 
economic, political, and social consequence, and it is undergoing a 
revolution as profound as interstate commerce in the United States a 
century ago.

  There has been a dramatic increase in the volume and value of trade. 
The number of countries participating in the international trade arena 
has mushroomed from 23 in 1947 to 111 10 years ago, to very likely 170 
or more before this decade is completed.
  Trade expansion now involves China, Vietnam, Russia, and many 
countries with different traditions and different economic structures 
than the United States. Major developing countries such as Brazil, 
Korea, India, Singapore, even South Africa, no longer compete in trade 
primarily in raw materials, agricultural products, or light 
manufactured goods. They also compete in steel, automobiles, 
electronics, and services such as telecommunications and software.
  Trade is not only far different in its quantity but also in its 
quality. We have progressed beyond the relatively uncomplicated world 
of tariffs reflecting the success of the GATT in the first 50 years in 
addressing most international trade barriers.
  We have now even moved beyond the challenges of many basic nontariff 
barriers and have entered an era in which trade policy includes a full 
range of policy laws and regulations that used to be considered 
exclusively or primarily domestic policy, including domestic 
agricultural programs, antitrust law, food safety, telecommunications, 
natural resources, conservation, labor standards, insurance regulation, 
and the intersection of effective protection of intellectual properties 
with health policy. Trade policy directly impacts domestic policy, and 
domestic policy impacts trade policy in ways that have far-reaching 
implications on our negotiating trade agreements and the legislation of 
domestic policy.
  It is precisely at this great time of great change and great 
challenge that it is most important for U.S. trade policy to reflect a 
real understanding of the substantive issues involved and be driven by 
sound guiding principles. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not 
rise to this challenge.
  Let me show one chart which demonstrates what is happening in the 
area of trade negotiations just over the past 30 or so years.
  In the Tokyo Round in 1979, we were focused on tariff levels and four 
or five other concerns, such as antidumping and government procurement.
  In the Uruguay Round, just 15 years later, one can see we went beyond 
the tariff levels and those issues that were part of the Tokyo Round 
and started including specific items such as textiles and clothing, 
natural resource products, services, dispute settlement, intellectual 
property, trade-related investment measures, trade in agriculture, 
health and safety measures. This was 1994.
  In 2001, in the WTO negotiations, one can see we have included all 
the things before from the Uruguay Round and added to that antitrust 
law, investment issues, pharmaceutical pricing, trade facilitation, 
electronic commerce, and many other issues.
  The point I am trying to make is if one reads the history of the 
United States and the issue of trade, for over 150 years this Nation 
focused almost exclusively on tariffs--that is the tax that we will 
impose on imports coming into the United States--and some very heated 
and pitched battles resulted.
  By 1979, we had gone beyond tariffs and four or five other issues. By 
1994, we added many more issues. By 2001, all of a sudden a trade 
agreement becomes much more than questions about tariffs and taxes. We 
start talking about policy considerations as varied as pharmaceuticals 
to agriculture--across the board.

  Giving the President the fast-track authority, trade promotion 
authority is saying to him: We are prepared to let you come to your 
best judgment with any country in the world when it comes to trade on 
all of these issues, and before you take your last stop in Congress and 
give us an up-or-down vote, we expect this is going to be ratified.
  Congress is walking away from all of these issues and subjects of 
concern. I can tell my colleagues that as I get into this, they will 
realize we have not lost any of our fervor or interest in any of these 
issues. In fact, Members who come to the floor today will say: What 
about textiles? What about intellectual property? What about electronic 
commerce?
  The fact is, if trade promotion authority passes as suggested by the 
Baucus-Grassley bill, we will have given

[[Page S4370]]

away our constitutional right to be part of this debate. The best you 
get, Mr. Senator, is an up-or-down, take-it-or-leave-it vote. I believe 
this is moving us in the wrong direction.
  Let me address two issues included in my amendment. The first is 
labor. The one thing I have noticed is this: Without fail, those who 
vote for it and those who even oppose it say the same thing about 
labor. Listen, I understand it may be cheaper to hire somebody in the 
Third World, in a developing country, to make a product, but shouldn't 
we as the United States, as part of a trade agreement, be encouraging 
some basic issues when it comes to labor overseas? Shouldn't we ask 
that both countries in a trade agreement have some basic dignity in 
their treatment of labor?
  People say, sure, I understand that, and you get down to specifics. 
Let me show a chart.
  Is there much doubt in the minds of all the Senators about what 
America thinks of child labor? If we knew we were entering into a trade 
agreement that would in any way promote the exploitation of children 
overseas, the hue and cry against it in the Senate would be 
overwhelming.
  This is a photo illustration. It may not be too visible to my 
colleagues, but it shows the use of child labor from 1908 all the way 
to 1992, a street vendor, a tiny little girl in Mexico City. It shows a 
brick worker, a young man in 1993 in Katmandu in Nepal. It is an 
illustration that when Americans see this, when Senators see it, they 
want to make certain, if we are going to enter into a trade agreement, 
it will not result in the exploitation of children overseas.
  We do not want to promote forced labor, slave labor, prison labor. We 
want to stand for the right of workers around the world to associate 
together and bargain collectively. These are core values of America, 
and they are core labor standards. Sadly, the Baucus-Grassley bill does 
not provide adequate protection for these principles.
  It does not require countries to implement core labor standards. The 
only enforceable commitment in this bill is the commitment that 
countries enforce their existing labor laws. The Baucus-Grassley bill 
does not require countries with inadequate labor laws to improve their 
standards to include core, internationally recognized labor rights.
  Let me be more specific, if I may, on this issue. We are considering 
this Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement, and in this free trade 
agreement is a question of whether or not we will try to expand trade 
with countries in our hemisphere. Certainly that, in and of itself, is 
a positive thing to do. But when one looks at the labor standards in 
some of the countries, they can understand why many of us are concerned 
that the Baucus-Grassley bill does not have adequate protections.
  Bolivia--part of the negotiations--has been criticized by the 
International Labor Organization for provisions in its labor law that 
permit apprenticeships for children who are 12 years old, which is 
considered by some as tantamount to not only child labor but to 
bondage. The International Labor Organization Committee of Experts also 
reports that abuses and lack of payment of wages constitute forced 
labor in the agricultural sector of Bolivia.
  Does the United States want to be party to an agreement with Bolivia, 
a trade agreement that would perpetuate this kind of exploitation? I do 
not think so. I think instead the United States wants to stand up for 
basic labor principles.
  This Baucus-Grassley bill would allow Panama to deny worker 
protections in export processing zones. In fact, in the so-called 
export processing zones, they would suspend basic collective bargaining 
and impose mandatory arbitration.
  The list goes on. It is a list which tells us that this should not be 
a naive endeavor in the belief that every country in the world shares 
our values. They do not, nor will they. But is it not important that as 
part of our trade agreements with labor standards we establish some 
basic standards on which we agree?
  We have done this now. President Clinton, in his administration, in 
the Jordan free trade agreement, based it on the premise that the 
parties to the agreement reflect core, internationally recognized labor 
rights in their domestic labor law. I quote the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus, when we had the Jordan free trade agreement 
before us. Senator Baucus said:

       Both Jordan and the United States, both countries, have 
     strong labor and environmental laws. Recognizing this, both 
     countries agree to effectively enforce their own laws.

  Senator Baucus recognized then and there the point I am making with 
this amendment. The key is not to say we are going to have strong labor 
standards and respect for working people in America and we will enter 
into a trade agreement with your country which may ignore them but, 
rather, to say we should agree to some basic, core labor standards. 
Otherwise, what will happen? You know what will happen. We will lose 
jobs in the United States. We will lose them to companies that shift 
their production overseas, that put the production out of the hands of 
American workers who are making a decent wage and into the hands of 
children and people who are being paid little or nothing, people in 
other countries that, frankly, do not have the most basic labor law 
protection.

  Is that what the United States is about? Is that what we want to 
achieve with trade agreements? Is it so important that we can buy 
something on sale in a store on Sunday that we can ignore the fact that 
a month before it was made with the hands of children in bondage in 
some small country on the other side of the world? I hope not.
  Unfortunately, the Baucus-Grassley bill, without the protection of 
this amendment, will leave the door wide open for little or nothing 
when it comes to labor standards.
  This amendment calls for the FTAA countries to implement and enforce 
five core International Labor Organization standards in domestic law. 
This objective only applies to the FTAA and other free trade 
agreements, not to the WTO, and it recognizes that least developed and 
developing countries should not be penalized because they face serious 
resource constraints in raising labor standards. My amendment calls for 
the inclusion of a work program in FTAA to assist lesser developed 
countries in implementing core labor standards using market access 
incentives and technical assistance.
  I also add that contrary to critiques being circulated by trade 
associations, the amendment does not require countries to sign 
International Labor Organization conventions.
  The most common questions I hear about trade agreements are: Are you 
going to exploit labor overseas and therefore kill American jobs? And I 
have addressed that. The second question is: Well, what are you going 
to do about the environment? Are you going to ignore the fact that some 
companies, because they do not like the restrictions of American law on 
the environment, will ship their production overseas and pollute the 
rivers, contaminate the air, and leave toxic waste behind? What are we 
going to do about the environmental side of the equation? I have never 
heard a Senator on either side of the aisle for or against trade 
agreements who has not said the following: Well, we should hold them to 
environmental standards. We do not want to say it is unreasonable, but 
certainly they ought to be held to environmental standards.
  As to the environment, this bill, the Baucus-Grassley bill, does 
nothing to address the intersection between trade rules and 
environmental standards.
  As to investment, the Baucus-Grassley bill could be read to broaden 
the ability of investors to challenge U.S. environmental, health, 
safety, and other regulations. In contrast, my amendment includes 
important clarifications to investment standards to ensure that 
investment rules cannot be used to undermine legitimate U.S. laws while 
ensuring effective protection for U.S. investors overseas.
  Let me try to be specific about that, if I may. Imagine that we had 
entered into an agreement with a foreign country with one of their 
companies and that foreign company wanted to locate in the United 
States, and that country then came in and said: Before we locate in the 
United States, we want to take a look at your laws and see if they are 
discriminatory.
  Let's use an example. They take a look at a wetland regulation. What 
is a wetland regulation? Well, it is a protection of the environment 
for certain

[[Page S4371]]

fragile land that is important for us to maintain drinkable water, safe 
water, habitat for animals. American businesses customarily are 
bound by wetland regulations. So the company from overseas, because the 
trade agreement says, wait a minute, we do not have to play by your 
wetland regulation rules because of the trade agreement, we consider 
that to be unfair, uncompetitive, and a taking from our company. So 
what we have done with the Baucus-Grassley bill is to open up a 
challenge from a foreign corporation that wants to come into the United 
States against our environmental standards. That, to me, is not 
consistent with what most of us want to see achieved in our trade 
agreements.

  Let me give a couple of other illustrations. There is the area of 
multilateral environmental agreements. The Baucus-Grassley bill does 
nothing to clarify the relationship between World Trade Organization 
rules and multilateral environmental agreements. In contrast, my 
amendment calls for creating an explicit rule ensuring that a country 
can enforce a multilateral environmental agreement without violating 
WTO obligations.
  What would that mean? Let me give an example. We enter into an 
international agreement about endangered species around the world. All 
of the countries sign on and say, we are going to protect these 
species, and if one of the countries overseas violates it, they are 
subject to penalty provisions. Whether we are talking about protecting 
an endangered animal or whether we are talking about eliminating the 
trade in skins or ivory tusks, countries around the world enter into 
these multilateral environmental agreements. Our fear is that the 
Baucus-Grassley bill will allow a trade agreement between two countries 
to supersede this multilateral environmental agreement. It is playing 
to the lowest common denominator when we allow trade agreements to 
supersede these kinds of multilateral agreements.
  On enforcement of environmental standards, the Baucus-Grassley bill 
retains the midnight change added to the bill in the House of 
Representatives. That change guts the already weakened environmental 
provisions in the bill by making clear that a country can lower its 
environmental standards for any reason with impunity. I want to make 
clear what that is all about because that is an important issue. It is 
one that was raised by the Senator from Texas, and it is one that I 
would like to address.
  We have a situation in the United States where we have established 
standards, and what if we had a provision where, in order to entice a 
certain company to locate its factory in the United States that our 
partner overseas would ask for a change in standards when it comes to 
environmental safety. The language which was added in the House states 
that no enforcement actions can be brought against a country for 
lowering environmental standards for any reason, including to begin a 
competitive advantage--again, playing to the lowest common denominator. 
The Baucus-Grassley bill retains this change from the House.

  Finally, in the area of regulatory authority, the Baucus-Grassley 
bill includes antiregulatory, anticonsumer provisions. These include 
requirements for a cost-benefit analysis for proposed regulations and a 
very reactionary approach toward food and labels.
  I have been through the cost-benefit analysis. Some who are opponents 
of consumer safety and environmental safety say, if you cannot prove to 
me there are dollars to be saved, we certainly should not allow the 
regulation to be in place. Many times the things that protect us the 
most in this country are hard to quantify in dollar terms. We know they 
are of value to us. Frankly, putting a dollar amount on it, so-called 
cost-benefit ratio, becomes difficult. That is the standard of this 
bill.
  Do you think as an American consumer it should be wrong or against 
the law that the food we import from overseas is labeled as to the 
country of origin? I don't think that is unreasonable. The Baucus-
Grassley bill characterizes food labeling as ``unjustified trade 
restrictions.'' Is it your right as a consumer to know when you buy 
canned goods that they are from overseas? Do you have a right to know 
that? I think you do. Then you can make your decision. Maybe you still 
want to buy that product from overseas. But should you have the right 
to make that decision? The Baucus-Grassley bill says no, it is an 
unfair trade restriction. That is what we face with the Baucus-Grassley 
amendment.
  Aside from the failure of this bill to adequately address the issues 
of labeling and environment, this legislation is dangerously flawed 
because it fails to ensure the vital role the Congress and the American 
people need to play at a time when trade is affecting so many 
businesses and so many jobs. I have listened to Senators on this floor, 
Mr. Lott, a Republican, minority leader, complain about Vietnamese 
catfish farmers. He said their competitive advantage was ``due to cheap 
labor and very loose environmental regulations.'' Senator Lott, my 
amendment addresses that. I hope you and others who feel the same will 
consider supporting it.
  I reflect for a moment on what has happened when it comes to steel, 
recalling I voted for these trade agreements. I cannot state how 
disappointed I am in the way we have dealt with challenges to the steel 
industry in America. I believe in trade, but I think it should be 
according to the rules. Countries around the world violated the rules; 
they dumped their product on the United States.
  What does it mean to dump a product? It means you sell your product 
in the United States at a price lower than the cost to produce it in 
your own country or lower than the amount that you sell it in your own 
country. You are clearly trying to run competitors out of the market. 
You are dumping. You are violating the rules. It happened in the United 
States and we lost over 25 of our best steel mills and tens of 
thousands of steelworker jobs.
  The President responded with an imposition of tariffs with some 
exceptions and made a move in the right direction. Critics came forward 
and said that was a very wrong thing for the President to do--too 
political. Excuse me, but if we are going to trade with other countries 
around the world, don't we owe it to our businesses and our workers to 
enforce laws? Don't we need to have a Congress and a President who will 
stand up for American businesses and workers? That is not political; 
that is what the debate is all about.

  The people who believe you can just expand trade without taking 
concern of its consequences, frankly, believe that the expansion of 
trade in and of itself is something that is ultimately going to be good 
no matter the consequences. I don't believe that. We have a 
responsibility. We as a Congress have to maintain this responsibility, 
to make sure that we have a process for the disapproval of certain 
trade agreements, to make certain that we have a voice when it comes to 
enforcing labor and environmental standards.
  Before closing, I acknowledge in particular two House Members, 
Congressman Charlie Rangel, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and 
Means Committee, and Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan. They have 
been invaluable in working with me to bring this amendment to the 
floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Leahy pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2520 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield some time to myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana controls the time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  Before I discuss the specifies of the Durbin amendment, I feel 
compelled to comment upon some of the dynamics of the trade bill.
  First, we reported the trade promotion authority bill out of the 
Finance Committee by a broad bipartisan 18-to-3 vote. There is strong 
bipartisan support for trade. I was the one, I believe, who called for 
the vote.

[[Page S4372]]

  I believe this vote was in accordance with the tradition of the 
Finance Committee in doing what is right for the American people. I am 
afraid that from the moment this bill hit the floor this emerging 
spirit of bipartisan consensus on trade has been jeopardized. 
Throughout, the committees, work this Congress, I stated my view that 
both trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance 
legislation must be passed or neither would be adopted. I still believe 
that is the case.
  Frankly, the compromise that was reached on TAA last week was at the 
very limit of what many of us on our side of the aisle could stomach. I 
have many reservations about the health care policies embraced by the 
compromise and the overall cost of the program.
  I think it is going to louse up the health care system of this 
country, and it is unfair to those workers who do not have health care, 
who have to pay for those who do not work so they can have health care. 
That is just one comment about it.
  As everybody knows, I worked very hard in the area of health care, 
and I really think we have made some big mistakes on some of the 
provisions we are going to accept in this bill.
  As I understand it, the final deal on TAA was at a cost that is very 
close to what Republican members of the Finance Committee opposed last 
fall.
  And then yesterday, the Senate accepted the Dayton-Craig amendment, 
which stands in violation to the very principle of TPA--a simple up or 
down vote on each trade agreement that USTR negotiates.
  The Dayton-Craig amendment, if signed into law, will establish a new 
set of rules with respect to agreements that purport to impinge upon 
U.S. trade remedy laws. Talk about opening a Pandora's box, that us 
what Dayton-Craig does.
  If you don't like the way a particular trade agreement affects the 
trade remedy laws, vote it down. USTR will quickly get the message. TPA 
is known is fast track for a good reason; let's not adopt amendments 
that act to slow down TPA.
  I have no doubt that President Bush, Secretary Evans, and Ambassador 
Zoellick will not undermine our trade protection laws.
  We saw that the administration did with steel and is doing on 
softwood lumber. I have had something to do with that. I stood up on 
the steel matter, lining up with my colleagues on the other side, 
especially Senator Rockfeller. This administration took a pretty tough 
position and has been criticized, especially in Europe, for having done 
so. There is good reason to have confidence in the administration and 
every reason to fear that enactment of Dayton-Craig would encourage 
some of our trading partners to attempt to wall off areas of the law 
that will be deemed near and dear to them.
  I hope that other nations will not try to relax their intellectual 
property laws or enforcement of these laws or enforcement of these laws 
as high technology represents an important area for U.S. interests and 
for the world at large. We are talking about software, information 
technology, entertainment, and biotechnology, all of which the whole 
world depends on. And we better protect it--in the sense of protecting 
the rights under these intellectual property laws.
  So I understand that we accepted Dayton-Craig, I am becoming fearful 
that the accumulated weight of the additions of the trade bill from the 
time it left the Finance Committee will bring down support for the 
bill.
  It is true that we passed a farm bill, but the loaded up version that 
we passed should not make us very happy. Let us not repeat 
that experience by passing a trade bill that tries to do too much for 
too many interests that are extrinsic to trade that, at the end of the 
day, it does not deserve our support.

  Comes now the Durbin amendment.
  I know Senator Durbin. He is a good man and has nothing but the best 
of intentions. I personally appreciate his help in funding the generic 
drug interests lost year. He did a good job.
  But, if enacted, the substitute would make it difficult or impossible 
to bring home the best trade deals for the United States. The 
substitute is so prescriptive it removes needed flexibility. It 
contains 70 pages of ``principal negotiating objectives.'' The effect 
of all this detail is to bind the administration's hands at the 
negotiating table and to telegraph a long list of U.S. ``bottom-lines'' 
to our negotiating partners--who will make us pay a heavy price.
  The substitute changes negotiating ``objectives'' into mandates. It 
gives 18 ``congressional advisers'' the right to withdraw TPA after an 
agreement is negotiated unless a majority considers that the trade 
agreement ``substantially achieves'' the substitute's principal 
negotiating objectives. That effectively makes the 70 pages of detailed 
negotiating objectives into requirements, setting an unrealistic and 
unobtainable standard for negotiations.
  The substitute adopts inconsistent approaches to negotiating 
objectives. For example, while the substitute says the United States 
should try to amend or clarify the GATT conservation exception, it says 
the United States should oppose opening the SPS Agreement, which is 
derived from the same set of GATT exceptions.
  The substitute will make it harder for the President to strike the 
best possible deals with our trading partners because it raises 
questions about whether the President will be negotiating on behalf of 
the United States as a whole.
  The substitute creates a biennial fast-track procedure for Congress 
to withdraw TPA for any reason after a negotiation has begun. That 
procedure--and the one allowing the congressional advisers to withdraw 
TPA if the administration has not ``substantially achieved'' the 
substitute's negotiating objectives--will lead our trading partners to 
question whether Congress and the President are united at the 
negotiating table. How could you make it tougher on the President and 
the U.S. Trade Representative?

  Instilling confidence is a major reason for enacting TPA. It means 
the President can push other governments to their ``bottom lines.'' The 
substitute bill would remove that confidence.
  The substitute is not drafted with an eye to what the United States 
can realistically achieve, or should try to secure, in trade 
negotiations. For example, the substitute says the administration 
should ``establish promptly a working group [in the WTO] on trade and 
labor issues.''
  This is something that the overwhelming majority of WTO members 
adamantly oppose. There is no realistic hope of achieving it anytime 
soon.
  In sum, the proposed substitute is based on the flawed assumption 
that Congress can pre-negotiate our future trade agreements through 
highly detailed negotiating objectives, regardless of whether they are 
achievable, and the implied threat to withdraw TPA if those objectives 
are not met. That is a recipe for no agreements, rather than better 
agreements. To achieve the best results, the two branches need to work 
together.
  I have to say that I have been a supporter of the U.S. Trade 
Representative since I have been in the Senate. I supported President 
Clinton's U.S. Trade Representative. I was one of the people who 
cleared the way for some of the things she did--and others as well.
  But the fact is, I think we need to support this Trade 
Representative, someone as bright as anybody we have ever had in that 
position, and someone who understands the need to satisfy 535 Members 
of Congress.
  The Finance Committee got it right. The House got it right. I oppose 
the Durbin amendment and will oppose other efforts to load up this 
trade bill with so much unnecessary, although sometimes well-
intentioned, baggage that the bill will fall of its own weight.
  That is the net effect of many of these amendments. The American 
labor force would have been better off if we had entered conference 
with the bill passed by the Finance Committee, rather than this ever 
growing extravaganza.
  This is important stuff. The Finance Committee is a great committee. 
Our two leaders on the committee have done a great job. I compliment 
Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for the work they have done. They 
deserve our support. We ought to support them.
  We should not be undermining what they and 18 members of the 
committee did. It was a bipartisan bill if there ever was a bipartisan 
bill. All of us knew that we have to get together in

[[Page S4373]]

order to do the constructive trade work that benefits our country.
  This amendment, unfortunately, undermines almost everything that we 
did in the committee and that the House has done. It is tough to get 
this kind of broad consensus in the Finance Committee on something that 
is very complex anyway, but we did. And I think that ought to be given 
greater consideration than we have thus far given it.
  I want to support my chairman. He has stood tall on this issue. And I 
look forward to working with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield myself about 10 minutes.
  I obviously have the highest regard for my colleague from Illinois. 
He is advocating a point of view that is extremely important; namely, 
the protection of American employees, the environment, basic principles 
that are fundamental to the human condition, working hard. I highly 
applaud him for what he is doing.
  I would like to comment a bit on some of the points that the Senator 
and that others who are in support of his amendment have made, just to 
clear the air a little bit so we know what is in the underlying bill 
and what isn't.
  The Senator said--and we all agree--that we want to uphold the 
dignity of law, particularly the dignity of labor, and do all we can to 
discourage the exploitation of children around the world, or other 
employees who are in adverse conditions. We all know that.
  I might say that one of the core objectives in the underlying bill is 
to promote the ILO core standards in new trade agreements. That has not 
been mentioned very frequently here. I think it is something that 
should be stated very clearly. That is, one of the negotiating 
objectives in the underlying bill is that the United States pursue 
promotion of the International Labor Organization core standards as one 
of our negotiating objectives.
  It is also important to know that each of the negotiating objectives 
in the underlying bill is of equal weight. We are not picking and 
choosing here. They all have the same weight.
  Some talk about textiles. There is a negotiating objective on trade 
in textiles. That is in a special category. There are other objectives, 
but the bill makes clear they all have equal weight, and our trade 
negotiators must pursue them all equally.
  Pursuance of ILO core standards is certainly one objective stated in 
the bill. It also has been said the bill does not push the United 
States strongly enough toward promoting ILO core standards. But, again, 
I want to underline that the provision in the bill directing our 
negotiators to pursue ILO core standards has the same weight as other 
negotiating objectives. It is not less important than any other 
objective; it is equal.
  Now, it has been stated that the so-called investor-State dispute 
resolution provisions in the bill kind of tilt toward foreign investors 
at the expense of American investors, or that environmental provisions 
that a State may pass, that Congress may pass, that a local government 
may pass, are in jeopardy because of rights we may afford to foreign 
investors; that is, it is asserted that foreign investors will have an 
easier time in challenging a State action as a compensable taking than 
a domestic investor.
  I might say, we corrected that problem with the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden 
amendment. The Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment makes it very clear that 
foreign investors should not be accorded a greater level of protection 
in the United States than domestic investors in the United States. That 
is, there should be a level playing field.
  We make that very clear in the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment that 
we adopted just yesterday.
  Now, it has also been stated: Gee, we have these multilateral 
environmental agreements that could be superseded by trade agreements. 
I urge all Senators to read the bill, and read it fairly closely, 
because it states very clearly that one of our overall objectives is 
for trade agreements and MEAs to be mutually supportive. That is the 
goal.

  It is clear that the United States cannot dictate exactly what the 
outcome of a trade negotiation will be, but it is certainly clear that 
we, in the underlying bill, have set as our objective making 
multilateral environmental agreements and trade agreements consistent 
with one another; that is, they should be mutually supporting. And many 
of those multilateral environmental agreements are good agreements.
  The one on ozone, for example, or the CITES on trade in endangered 
species products are terrific agreements. It is only proper that our 
trade agreements not undermine these environmental agreements.
  It has also been stated here: Well, gee, under the provisions of this 
bill, it says we cannot have country-of-origin labeling. I ask Senators 
to go back and read the bill. That is not an accurate statement. It is 
accurate to say there are provisions in the bill that say that we 
should not agree to deceptive labeling requirements or labeling 
requirements that are not based on scientifically sound principles. 
That is true. We should not allow labeling requirements that are not 
based on scientifically sound principles.
  But there are all kinds of labeling requirements that are 
permissible. I know my friend from Illinois agrees, as do others, that 
we should not have deceptive labeling or labeling requirements that are 
not based on sound science.
  It has been stated here that enforcement of environmental and labor 
laws is weak in the underlying bill. But, again, I remind my colleagues 
that enforcement of environmental and labor laws is a priority; it is 
one of the objectives that is listed in the underlying bill. It has 
equal weight with all of the other objectives.
  We want to enforce environmental laws. We want to enforce labor laws. 
It is also important, on this point, to remind ourselves that the 
vision of the bill with respect to labor and environment is a dramatic 
improvement over the status quo; that is, over current law, current law 
being no fast track.
  Let's remember, in previous fast-track bills, there was virtually 
nothing on the environment or on labor that made any sense. It took a 
lot of work to get these provisions in, that is, the Jordan provisions, 
which provide that no country should derogate from its environmental or 
labor laws in a manner that has an adverse effect on trade with the 
United States. That is very important.
  Clearly, that is a first step. We have to take steps here. The United 
States cannot today pass, in my judgment, fast-track legislation which 
really dictates to other countries what their environmental and labor 
standards should be.
  The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois unfortunately goes 
in that direction. It is an extremely prescriptive bill. It is 
unworkable. It basically is not a fast-track bill delegating 
negotiating authority to the executive branch, which we must do if we 
are going to have trade agreements. Rather, it is writing the trade 
agreements. It is saying what all the provisions must be, which is 
clearly a very unworkable way for the United States to negotiate trade 
agreements.
  I have deepest sympathy for the intent of my friend from Illinois. 
But I must say, after listening to his presentation, there are 
provisions in the bill which address some of the concerns he has--in 
fact, almost all the concerns he has. We have to take this a step at a 
time. We cannot solve all the world's problems in one fast-track 
delegation bill, but we can take tremendous steps forward, as this bill 
does.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to not adopt the amendment by the 
Senator from Illinois. It goes much too far. The provision the Senator 
is suggesting was defeated resoundingly in the other body by over 100 
votes. In the Ways and Means Committee, the vote was 22 to 10. So it is 
not a consensus measure by any stretch of the imagination. It was 
defeated quite soundly in the other body. On the other hand, the 
Finance Committee passed out the current version by a vote of 18 to 3, 
favorably, which indicates a much stronger consensus. It would have to 
go back to the House.
  I urge Senators again to not support the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.

[[Page S4374]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and a half minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. And on the opposition side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I support the Durbin amendment but not 
because I support fast track. Trade promotion authority, which is 
better known as fast track, is a piece of legislation this Congress 
should not adopt. However, if the Congress decides that there are 
sufficient votes for fast track, I certainly want the provisions 
dealing with labor and the environment offered by Senator Durbin to be 
in that final package.
  Yesterday, at some length I described the dilemma. The dilemma is, in 
international competition, what is fair competition and what is the 
admission price to the American marketplace? Do we want standards, when 
we adopt trade agreements, that do not put American producers in a 
circumstance of having to compete with others around the world who are 
hiring 12-year-old kids, putting them in factories working 12 hours a 
day, paying them 30 cents an hour? Yes, that happens. The question is, 
Is that fair competition for American producers? The answer is clearly 
no.
  What do we do about that? Every single trade agreement we seem to 
adopt--and it is proposed now that we adopt them under fast track so we 
can offer no amendments when they come back--every single trade 
agreement fails to address these underlying issues. What is fair 
competition? Will we really deal with the labor issues? Will we really 
tell others that you cannot hire kids and put them in plants at age 12 
and 11 and 10 and pay them pennies and then ship their products to 
Pittsburgh or Toledo or Cleveland or Fargo or Los Angeles? Will we do 
that or will we tell companies you cannot pole-vault to Sri Lanka or 
Bangladesh or China and pollute the water and air and hire kids? Is 
that fair competition? Will we ever as a country decide that we will 
stand up for our producers and our workers to say, yes, you must 
compete, you must be ready to compete, but we will make sure the 
competition is fair?
  That is why the underlying issue is not fast but fair trade; not fast 
track but fair trade.
  This debate will go on at some great length. If this Congress is to 
pass fast track, it must do so with the provisions on labor and the 
environment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin.
  I do not support fast track. Our trade deficit is growing every 
single year. It is now at record high levels: $450 billion, over $1 
billion a day every single day in merchandise trade deficit.
  That is not a debt we owe to ourselves. That is a debt that will be 
repaid someday with a lower standard of living in this country. Why? 
Because our trade agreements haven't been in this country's best 
interests. They don't deal with the central issues of what is fair 
competition.
  That is why my colleague, Senator Durbin, is proposing, if we have an 
amendment dealing with fast track that allows no amendments to be 
offered when trade agreements come back, that at least fast track 
include the labor and environmental provisions he proposes. I will not 
support fast track, but I do believe his attempt to insert these 
provisions in this legislation makes good sense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding I have about 9 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Exactly.
  Mr. DURBIN. And 19 minutes on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Right.
  Mr. DURBIN. In the interest of expediting the debate, if the Senator 
from Montana has anyone who wants to speak in opposition, I invite him 
to use the time now. I can close using my 9 minutes and then allow him 
similar time to close, if that would be appropriate. If we could bring 
this to a close, it would be in the best interest of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I did not hear the response. How much time remains on 
both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 18 minutes 54 
seconds; Senator Durbin has 8 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, just a couple points to make here. We 
have to pass this bill. We in America must show that we are not 
isolating ourselves from the world but, rather, moving forward; we are 
engaging the world in trade agreements. We must move forward. As the 
largest, strongest country in the world, we must not abdicate our 
leadership position in the world.
  The underlying bill, the fast-track bill before us, which includes 
trade adjustment assistance as well as the Andean Trade Preference Act, 
will help the United States regain some lost position in world 
leadership certainly with respect to trade, international affairs, and 
economic affairs, particularly. We can say no. We can say we are not 
going to pass this bill. One Senator said he is opposed to fast track.
  Frankly, if we as a body say no, we as a Congress say no, we are, as 
a country, like the ostrich with his head in the sand, isolating 
ourselves from the rest of the world. We cannot go backwards. We must 
embrace the future, embrace it, work with it, help it work to our 
advantage, work with other countries to our mutual advantage, but 
certainly not to the disadvantage of the United States. That is what we 
must do.
  The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois is a killer 
amendment. It is clearly a killer amendment. It is an amendment to 
totally undermine the provisions of this bill. It is totally contrary 
to a balanced effort on a bipartisan basis, working together, both 
sides of the aisle, to get legislation passed. For that reason, it is 
essential that it not be adopted.
  Let's not forget, too, that in addition to the trade negotiating 
objectives, which we have been talking about, this bill also includes 
another provision which, frankly, is the driver. It is the main 
provision in the whole bill. That is trade adjustment assistance. That 
is the most important part of this legislation. It expands the current 
program by three or fourfold. It includes secondary workers. It 
includes health insurance benefits, provisions that don't exist today 
in current law.
  This bill is designed to strike a bargain between manufacturers and 
producers on the one hand and people who work in plants and factories 
and companies on the other hand. We are all Americans in this together. 
It is true that trade with other countries yields tremendous economic 
advantages to the United States. We all know that. That is a given. We 
also know that trade with other countries also causes dislocations, the 
topsy-turvy world we are in now, almost chaotic, certainly sometimes 
unsettling. We know that. The trade adjustment provisions in this bill 
help people who are dislocated, who lose their jobs on account of 
trade. It also provides them health insurance if they lose their jobs 
on account of trade. That cannot and should not be forgotten here. That 
is part of the bargain in reaching a trade agreement; namely, helping 
make sure our country can negotiate trade agreements overseas but doing 
the best we can to protect our workers at home. It is vitally 
important.

  The Senator earlier said that we have a huge trade deficit that has 
been caused by all these trade agreements. That is not accurate. We 
have a large trade deficit for many reasons. One is, frankly, because 
American consumers want to buy cheaper products made overseas. I do not 
think that very many Americans want to move overseas, or work for 25 
cents or $1 an hour making shoes or products that are produced 
overseas. Rather, it is up to us in the United States to keep working 
on the areas we are best at; and that is, educating our workforce, 
providing more job training and more ways for us to secure better, 
higher paying jobs. That is the goal we should have.
  Another cause of the trade deficit which has nothing to do with trade 
laws in a certain sense, is the high U.S. dollar versus other 
countries' currencies. In fact, that is the main reason we have a trade 
deficit. I think to some degree it is a little secret, but all Treasury 
Secretaries who followed this the last 20, 30 years, like the high 
dollar. Why? Because a strong dollar

[[Page S4375]]

keeps inflation down. They think it is good to keep inflation down, so 
we have a high dollar.
  As a consequence, foreign products are cheaper, irrespective of trade 
agreements--totally irrespective of trade agreements. That is one of 
the main reasons we have a trade deficit, which should be addressed, I 
grant my colleagues, but not addressed in a way that says: Let's have a 
very prescriptive fast-track bill which dictates what all the 
provisions should be in a way that is totally unworkable. It will not 
work at all, and that means not giving the President authority to 
proceed.
  I will yield back the remainder of my time--I do not have much to 
add--with the understanding my good friend from Illinois also will not 
have a lot to add so we can vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Durbin 
amendment. It is just what we need to get this fast track on the right 
track because right now it is not. The reason it is not is because we 
are giving up our rights under the underlying bill to amend to take 
care of our people, to make sure these agreements are fair to our 
workers, to our families, to our environment.
  When I got elected to the Senate, I did not say: I want to come here 
and fight for you, but there is one area I am going to give up all of 
my views and allow the President to address. I am not going to do it. 
It does not make sense. The Durbin amendment understands that we are 
here to do a job. He makes sure we are putting into place environmental 
checks. He makes sure working standards are looked at. It is very 
important.
  I did not give fast-track authority to a President of my own party 
because I did not want to give up my rights. I agreed with that 
President so much of the time. I think it is a matter of how we view 
ourselves here: Do we come here to whimp out on important issues that 
have an impact on the daily lives of people? I did not come here to go 
home and face workers and say: Gee, I am really sorry, we could not 
fight for you. We gave that authority to President Bush. Especially 
when President Bush was Governor, he supported a minimum wage of $3.35 
cents an hour in Texas, and he is trying to roll back environmental 
standards in our own country. Talk to Jim Jeffords about it. Talk about 
how this President said he was going to do something about global 
warming and not only backed out of Kyoto but now does not want to do 
anything about CO2.
  Why on Earth would we give over our authority and our vote to someone 
who has not fought for the rights of workers? As a matter of fact, he 
fights ergonomics standards. He fights when we try to pass a minimum 
wage. He is fighting us on this. Why would we give up our rights to 
that kind of President? It does not make sense.
  In closing, I want to read a letter I found in the New York Times in 
the Metropolitan Diary:

       Dear diary:
       Got out of bed:
       Took off my pajamas--made in Guatemala.
       Put on my shorts--Brooks Brothers imported fabric.
       T-shirt--Dominican Republic.
       Terry robe--Pakistan.
       Slippers--China.
       Drank my coffee--Colombia.
       Put on my pants--China.
       Golf shirt--Peru.
       Socks--Korea.
       Belt--Uruguay.
       Zipper jacket--Korea.
       Drove to the mall.
       Which countries will I discover today?
       Good morning, America.

  It is signed Henry Karig.
  If all these nations treated their workers fairly, had good 
environmental standards, up to our standards, I would not be here today 
because I would give fast-track authority for a treaty where we are 
negotiating with someone who is our equal. But we are giving this 
President the broad authority to walk in and, frankly, negotiate the 
rights of our workers, our families, and our environment.
  I hope we adopt the Durbin amendment. I think it is a solid 
amendment. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 19 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for her words of 
support.
  Senator Hatch said the Durbin amendment makes it tougher on the 
President. I remind my good friend from the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and my colleague from Utah that the Constitution makes it tough on the 
President. Article I section 8 says:

       The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations . . .

  Every President would like to see that stricken from the Constitution 
so they do not have to worry about this meddlesome interference from 
Congress. Congress comes in here representing all these people, all 
these businesses, all these farmers, all these ranchers, and Presidents 
do not have time for that. So they need fast track so they can have a 
fast track around Congress, give us a quick up-or-down, take-it-or-
leave-it, thank-you-ma'am vote and go home. That is what this is about. 
It is a question of constitutional authority and whether Congress is 
going to vote to give away our authority under the Constitution which 
we have sworn to uphold and protect.
  Also, the Senator from Montana has said his bill is going to dedicate 
us to ``pursuing international labor objectives.'' My amendment goes 
further. It does not talk about pursuing them. It says implement and 
enforce them. Do my colleagues know the difference? I can pursue a 
career in the movies for as long as I want. I do not think I am going 
to get it. But if I am told that I have to get one, get out to 
Hollywood and get busy, I take it a little more seriously. That is what 
the Durbin amendment does when it comes to labor standards.
  This has been characterized--and it is typical in debate--as a killer 
amendment. Allow me to respond. Without this amendment, the Baucus-
Grassley bill is going to, frankly, put us in a position where we will 
be killing jobs in America.
  To say we have a strong adjustment assistance section is like saying: 
I am sorry I have to spread disease across America, but the good news 
is we are going to open more hospitals. In this case, we are saying: We 
know we are going to lose jobs to these trade agreements; the good news 
is we will keep your family together for a few months and give you 
health insurance. How is that for a deal? Not a very good one.
  Frankly, we should be saying we need expanded trade, we need trade 
agreements, but we need to work with countries that respect the basic 
standards and treatment of workers so we do not have exploited child 
labor, slave labor, and forced labor; so that workers around the world 
have the rights they have in the United States to bargain collectively 
and to associate together.
  What is radical about this notion? For 70 years in America it has 
been one of our core values. Why isn't it part of our values when it 
comes to trade agreements? If we do not have it as part of our values, 
believe me, we are going to be continuing to lose jobs.
  We have to have trade that is fair, and if we fail to pass this 
amendment, we are also going to kill environmental quality. Let's be 
very clear about this. These multilateral environmental agreements are 
not respected by the Baucus-Grassley bill. Our bill basically says if 
two countries have entered into these agreements, they will be 
respected. No trade agreement is going to supersede it. Should we not 
be striving for a cleaner environment around the world? Is it not 
important to us, whether it is in Mexico, Brazil, or Uruguay, that we 
have environmental standards? I think it is.
  Expanding trade is good, but it is not always good. It should be done 
in the context of fairness, of rules that can be enforced, of standards 
and values that America is proud of so that when it is all said and 
done, we can say to the American workers: Roll up your sleeves and 
let's get ready to compete, you know we can.
  We are competing against a country that is going to play by the same 
rules we are playing by or aspire to the same values, but the Baucus-
Grassley bill says, no, do not force those standards; play to the 
lowest common denominator when it comes to labor standards, play to the 
lowest common denominator when it comes to environmental protection. 
That is not what we should do.

[[Page S4376]]

  Before this Congress gives away constitutional authority established 
by our Founding Fathers, in a constitution we have sworn to uphold and 
protect, stop for a minute and think: Should we not put safeguards in 
this process so that the Senate and Congress have a voice, so that the 
American people have a voice, so that the millions I represent and 
others represent when the trade agreements come due understand they 
have the protection of a Congress that will fight for their rights, not 
an alternative of take it or leave it, up or down, thank you, ma'am, 
good-bye Congress?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, my good friend from Illinois ridiculed 
the concept that if he pursued to be an actor or movie star, he would 
never be one. I might say I think the Senator is a great actor. I will 
nominate the Senator for an Oscar for best actor or best supporting 
actor. I think the Senator has a great career in the movies based upon 
this last performance.
  In that vein, to be honest about all of this, we have to ask 
ourselves, what is best, given all the complexities we are dealing 
with? That is really the question. This bill is a huge step forward 
with respect to protecting labor and the environment overseas. It is 
massive compared to what we have done in the past. A basic question we 
have to ask ourselves is: Are we in favor of trade agreements or are we 
not? Generally, that is the basic question.
  I think we should pursue trade agreements. There are some in this 
body who will vote against all of them, fast track or trade agreements. 
Let's not forget, most trade in this country has nothing to do with 
fast-track negotiating authority. Some of it has to do with some trade 
agreements that are reached without fast track. We are talking only 
about the very complex multilateral trade agreements. That is what fast 
track is about. Companies, employees, and people should pursue their 
economic objectives worldwide, irrespective of anything they call fast 
track.
  In addition, there are lots of bilateral trade agreements that are 
negotiated and reached all around the world, irrespective of fast 
track. Fast track will only be used for the very complicated 
multinational trade agreements, and we have to delegate authority to 
the President because we are the only nonparliamentary government 
negotiating these agreements in most cases. That is in our separation 
of powers and in our Constitution. Other countries are not going to 
negotiate with the President knowing that the Congress can totally 
amend it according to our own particular State and congressional 
interests. They cannot negotiate with us. We have to, on the very 
complex agreements, have a fast-track negotiating authority. It is just 
a given. Otherwise, nothing happens on the very large, complex 
agreements we hope we can reach to knock down trade barriers around the 
world in agriculture and lots of other areas if we are really going to 
help our people get these trade barriers overseas knocked down, which 
is the real goal of all of this--to open markets. We need to pass this 
to get that done.

  Second, we have to ask ourselves, do we want a partisan bill or a 
nonpartisan bill? We know we have a closely divided Senate. We have to 
have a nonpartisan bill. It has to be nonpartisan. The provision the 
Senator is advocating is totally partisan. It received not one vote 
from the Republican Party on the other side--not one vote on the floor 
or in committee.
  Now, I am a Democrat. I am very proud to be a Democrat, but I am also 
a Montanan and an American, and I want practical results that really 
move us forward. This bill before us is that. It is a bipartisan bill. 
It is not a partisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It passed the 
committee 18 to 3, and it has strong bipartisan support in this body.
  So if we really want to reach our objectives and get things done and 
work to try to solve these extremely complex problems--and they are 
complex--I believe we should do it on a bipartisan basis, not on a 
totally partisan basis. Even though I am a Democrat and strongly 
support the ideas of our party, we have to be practical about things 
and get some results as well.
  Third, this is the most progressive fast-track bill this country has 
ever seen, by far. I understand some of the problems the Senator from 
Illinois is suggesting. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the 
good. The Senator is seeking perfection. We cannot have perfection. His 
idea of perfection is totally opposite to some other Senator's idea of 
perfection, and we can think right now in our minds who that Senator 
might be.
  We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. We have to find a 
good solution, a good result, and this underlying bill is just that. I 
ask my colleagues, therefore, to vote for the most progressive trade 
bill this body has ever seen. Unfortunately, that means voting against 
the amendment of my good friend from Illinois for all the reasons I 
have indicated.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, as we emerge from last year's 
recession, we must remain focused on promoting economic opportunities 
and creating jobs.
  Expanding international trade can help our economy.
  Our small and large companies, and our workers benefit when we open 
foreign markets to American goods. Our farmers and ranchers benefit 
when they can sell their agricultural products overseas and our 
families benefit when reduced tariffs lower the price of consumer 
goods.
  However, as we look to expand economic opportunities through 
international trade, we should remember the Hippocratic oath that all 
physicians must take: ``First, do no harm.''
  While we should strive to expand international trade, we must first 
do no harm to our economy and our workers.
  Now more than ever as our Nation continues to lose manufacturing 
jobs. We must not allow our trading partners to gain unfair advantages 
at the expense of American workers.
  Fair trade expands opportunities and creates jobs. Unfair trade ships 
opportunities and jobs overseas.
  My State alone has lost nearly 40,000 manufacturing jobs since 1998. 
In fact, in fiscal year 2001 alone, Missouri lost 25,000 jobs. Jobs 
were lost in every region of the State.
  Springfied, MO, used to be home to a Zenith Electronics facility that 
manufactured molded cabinets. Four-hundred and thirty residents of that 
community lost their jobs when the company closed down and moved to 
Mexico in 1994.
  Lamy Manufacturing had been making pants in Sedalia, MO, for 132 
years. They made pants for the army during World War II. The company 
was forced to close its doors and lay off approximately 350 workers in 
1999 because of a flood of inexpensive imports.
  Eight-hundred and twelve people lost their jobs last year when GST 
Steel shut down its plant in Kansas City. That closing marked the end 
of a plant whose history dated back to 1888.
  And earlier this year, Ford Motor Company announced that it was 
closing its manufacturing facility in Hazelwood, MO. This plant employs 
nearly 2,600 people. It has been open since Harry Truman was in the 
White House.
  The jobs we have lost are good jobs, the type of jobs that come with 
health benefits, and a pension, the type of jobs that enable you to pay 
the mortgage and put some money aside to pay for college or care for an 
elderly parent.
  On April 2, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about this 
phenomenon entitled ``High Paid Jobs latest U.S. Export.''
  The article told of the efforts of several U.S. manufacturers to 
lower their costs by moving facilities abroad.
  Our government should not encourage these moves, which result in 
thousands of American jobs being exported to foreign countries. But 
this is precisely what happens when we sign trade agreements with 
countries that do not allow workers to form labor unions, countries 
that allow children to work in unsafe factories, and countries that 
produce cheap goods because their factories can wantonly pollute the 
environment.
  I firmly believe that expanded international trade can benefit 
American companies, American farmers, and American workers. But unless 
we ensure that our trade agreements contain real labor standards, 
working families will continue to suffer and we will continue to lose 
American jobs.

[[Page S4377]]

  President Bush has announced that he wants to expand NAFTA to the 
rest of the hemisphere and cared a Free Trade Area of the America. If 
we want to prevent even more jobs form being lost, we must ensure that 
an agreement to expand NAFTA contains meaningful protections for 
American workers.
  That is why I support Senator Durbin's alternative. His proposal 
strikes the appropriate balance between promoting trade and protecting 
jobs. It would give the President the authority he needs to pursue 
international trade agreements. And at the same time, it would ensure 
that those agreements do not threaten working families.
  Workers in this country fought for years to gain the rights they 
currently enjoy: the right to organize; the ban on child labor; the 40-
hours work week; and the minimum wage.
  The Baucus-Grassley Amendment concerns me because it does not 
adequately protect working families. It doesn't require our trading 
partners to have any laws or regulation to protect workers. The 
amendment only requires that a country enforce its existing labor 
laws--regardless of how weak those laws may be.
  How can we possible engage in fair trade with a country that permits 
14-year-olds to work in factories?
  How can we engage in fair trade with a country where the hourly wage 
is mere pennies an hour?
  We cannot. And if we sign trade agreements with countries like this, 
and don't demand basic protections, we will continue to see American 
jobs evaporate.
  To make matters worse, the Baucus-Grassley amendment contains a 
provision that actually allows a country to weaken its labor and 
environmental laws in order to attract investment.
  This flies in the face of the concept of fair trade. In order for 
fair trade to truly exist, all of the nations involved must meet and 
maintain certain minimum requirements so American workers can compete 
fairly.
  The proposal that Senator Durbin has offered provide real 
protections. His amendment requires countries to implement and enforce 
five core standards. Those standards include: One, the right of 
association; two, the right to collectively bargain; three, a ban on 
child labor; four a ban on forced labor; and five, a ban on 
discrimination.
  Ensuring that these minimum labor standards are included in our trade 
agreements will enable American workers to compete on a level playing 
field and help stop the loss of American jobs.
  I believe in America's workforce. And I am confident that, given the 
chance to compete fairly, American workers will thrive.
  I believe that the alternative that Senator Durbin has put forward 
strikes the right balance.
  This common-sense approach will enable all the working families of 
this Nation to enjoy the benefits offered by expanded international 
trade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield whatever time my friend from Utah desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I also agree that the distinguished 
Senator would make an excellent actor. In fact, I am going to talk to 
our mutual friends at DreamWorks to make sure they extend an offer to 
him because I believe he could do much better than he is doing on the 
floor today.
  Secondly, on the Constitution, we are going through this exercise 
because we control this process. The Finance Committee, 18 to 3, said 
we should have a process that works, and it should be a nonpartisan 
process that works. We have come very close to having a very partisan 
process as it is. We cannot take any more of these kinds of amendments 
and have a process that will work at all in the best interest of our 
country.
  I am, of course, kidding my partner. I have a lot of respect for him. 
He is clearly a very intelligent and very articulate spokesperson for 
his point of view. But the fact is, it is not easy to get 18 votes in 
the Finance Committee on most issues. Our chairman has done a terrific 
job. So has our ranking member. We need to back them. We need to back 
our U.S. Trade Representative. He is a terrific human being, and he 
works very hard, as did his predecessors in the prior administration. I 
supported them.
  This bill is an extremely important bill for our country, and I 
believe in the end it is an important bill for the world. We know our 
role in the world. We know we have to play that role, and we have to 
help many countries throughout the world.
  I think it is a little ironic that some would suggest our country 
would not do what is right for the rest of the world, even though we 
cannot do everything the rest of the world wants, nor can we always 
please our friends in Europe or anybody else for that matter. But this 
bill will help us. This bill will help strengthen our economy. This 
bill will help every worker in America. This bill helps people who are 
not able to work right now.
  I have said we have to have both TPA and TAA. I said it in committee. 
I want to compliment our leaders on the Finance Committee and our 
leaders on the floor. They have done a terrific job and they deserve 
backing. We ought to defeat this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Is all time yielded back on the amendment?
  Does the Senator from Montana yield back all time on the amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The question is on agreeing to the 
motion. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of the Gregg amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to offer 
an amendment related to environment and labor standards; that the next 
Democratic amendments following the Dodd amendment will be the 
following----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator restate the consent because I was not 
able to hear.

[[Page S4378]]

  Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the 
Gregg amendment, which should be at around 11:30 tomorrow morning, 
Senator Dodd be recognized to offer an amendment relating to 
environment and labor standards; that the next Democratic amendments 
following the Dodd amendment be the following; provided further, that 
if there is an amendment from the Republican side, then the amendments 
will be considered in an alternating fashion, as follows: Republican 
amendment, Rockefeller-Mikulski amendment regarding steel, Republican 
amendment, Kerry amendment regarding investors, Republican amendment, 
Dorgan amendment regarding Cuba, Republican amendment, Torricelli 
amendment regarding labor standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, are there 
time agreements on these amendments?
  Mr. REID. No.
  Mr. DORGAN. Can the Senator state it again? I apologize. I was 
unaware of this request. Can you tell me again the order of the 
amendments?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to: Dodd, Republican, Rockefeller-Mikulski, 
Republican, Kerry, Republican, Dorgan, Republican, Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 3427 To Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3427.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To strike the provisions relating to wage insurance)

       Strike section 243(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 as added by 
     section 111.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this amendment deals with one of the 
issues in the trade adjustment section of the bill. This bill, as has 
been mentioned in numerous discussions here, has four major sections, 
four major issues. One of them is trade adjustment.
  First off, I do not think all these issues should have been joined. 
Historically, the Congress has taken up trade promotion authority, 
which used to be known as fast track, independent of these other 
issues. It has taken up trade adjustment as a freestanding bill. And 
certainly it has taken up the Andean trade preference bill as a 
freestanding bill.
  They should not have been merged, but, unfortunately, they were 
merged. As a result of being merged, I believe a lot of language has 
been basically hooked to the train because they know the train is 
leaving the station.
  The language, regrettably, is not good. It is not good policy. In 
fact, it is extremely detrimental policy. It should be rejected by the 
Senate. However, it is part of the package, and there is concern about 
the whole package going down if this language is deleted.
  In my opinion, some of this language is so egregious, we as a Senate 
need to be on record about it, and we should defeat it. Two of these 
sections that are egregious, because they open huge new entitlement 
questions, are the health care section of the trade adjustment language 
and what is called the wage insurance section, wage subsidy section of 
the trade adjustment language.
  The health insurance language has been talked about quite a bit. I 
have certainly talked about it. It basically, in a very haphazard way, 
addresses one of the fundamental issues we as a Congress have to 
address, which is how we deal with people who are uninsured in our 
society in health care. In my opinion, doing it in this very narrow way 
is taking a step down a path which will probably lead to having poor 
policy overall in the area of health insurance, something I have spent 
a lot of time working on in the Senate. Therefore, I think this is the 
wrong vehicle in which to have that type of language.
  I am not addressing that tonight. What I have proposed is a motion to 
strike the wage subsidy language in this bill. What is wage subsidy? It 
is very important to understand this right upfront. What this is is a 
new concept, a concept which essentially says that if you lose your job 
as a senior citizen--not a senior citizen, I am not a senior citizen--
if you lose your job and you are over age 50--although you do qualify 
to be a senior citizen over age 50; I get all these forms now that tell 
me I am a senior citizen--if you lose your job over age 50 as a result 
of a trade adjustment event, and then you go out and take another job, 
you will have a right--this is the point, the big point of context--you 
will have a right to receive, if the second job you take pays you less 
than the job you lost as a result of trade activity, you will have a 
right to get from the taxpayers of America up to $5,000 to make up the 
difference between the job you lost and the job you have taken.

  This is a concept which, as I mentioned earlier, is in great vogue in 
places such as Italy and France but which goes fundamentally against 
the free market society we have in our country and which has been the 
dynamic that has made our society so strong. That dynamic is 
essentially this: We have a marketplace which says we want people to be 
the most productive they can be; we want them to have jobs where they 
are going to obtain the best benefit, not only for themselves but the 
best benefit for the whole, by doing the best they can in a job that is 
producing economic activity that is benefiting everyone.
  The way you do that is you allow the marketplace to decide what a 
person's value is within the marketplace, and the person can move from 
job to job and improve their standing and, as a result, improve their 
own personal income but also improve the economic activity of the whole 
country.
  What this bill is proposing is that we no longer do that, that we 
reward people for taking a less efficient job, for taking a job where 
they are less productive, and for taking a job which basically is less 
of an incentive for them to be productive than what they presently 
have, and we are going to reward them for that. We are going to reward 
them for stepping out of the mainstream of the marketplace, where they 
have been successful, and stepping backwards.
  It is really a unique concept for us as a country to pursue at this 
time. It is especially ironic in light of what has happened in such 
other industries; for example, the whole technology industry, where you 
had a huge reorganization as a result of the late 1990s activities and 
the Internet and the boom in the Internet and then the bust in the 
Internet, people having to move from job to job.
  Suddenly we are going to say we no longer have any confidence in the 
marketplace. We are going to tell people, you can take a lesser job, be 
less productive, but we will pay you more money and use tax dollars to 
do it. It is a concept which is used in France and Italy, but it 
certainly is not appropriate here.
  I want to talk about the specifics of how this is structured. The 
structure of it is also unique. It abandons all the basic rules and 
regulations under the present trade adjustment authority. Then I want 
to talk about the philosophy of it.
  To outline what it does, it says, if you lose a job as a result of 
trade and you are over 50 years old and you get a new job within 26 
weeks and the new job pays less than the old job, then the taxpayers 
will make up the difference up to $5,000 if the job pays less than 
$50,000. It does not require any training. It does not require that you 
choose a similar or suitable job that is available.
  In other words, if there is a job out there that is equal to what you 
are presently doing and you can have that job or you want to take a 
different job that pays a lot less--I can think of a lot of reasons 
somebody might want to do that if they are over 50 years old--then you 
can take that job that pays less and the taxpayers have to make up the 
difference. You do not have to take a similar or suitable job.

[[Page S4379]]

  It does not require that you remain in the community, which is 
something the trade adjustment clause has required. There is no 
limitation based on necessity, and the program does not consider 
whether wage rates at the new employer have been altered or negotiated 
or manipulated to basically make a deal.
  These are all big issues. There is no requirement that the 
relationship be arm's length between the new job you take that is 
subsidized by the taxpayer and the old job that you lost. There is no 
protection afforded to other workers who may be displaced. It just runs 
to the people who are over 50 years old and who are subjected to trade 
adjustment.
  The fact that there is no training required flies in the face of the 
whole concept of the trade adjustment proposal. Anybody who has spent 
any time with trade adjustment knows its real strength is that it says 
to a person who loses their job because the industry they are in maybe 
can't compete with products coming in as a result of a trade agreement 
or for some other reason--we say to that person, we are going to give 
you all sorts of training options so you can improve your position, 
improve your knowledge base, and move forward, hopefully to a higher 
level job in a different sector that has not been so significantly 
impacted by trade.
  That is one of the key ingredients to trade adjustment. The wage 
subsidy has absolutely no training requirement. So it basically throws 
out one of the key components of trade adjustment.
  Another key component is that if there is a similar or suitable job 
available, you should take it. Why shouldn't you? Let's say you are 
working for an employer for whose product you have a skill that you 
have developed but the employer didn't do a good job competing in that 
area. That skill is unique and it is special. And there is another 
employer over here across the street who is making the same product and 
is competing well in the international marketplace. If that job is 
available to you, you should take it. Under trade adjustment, you are 
supposed to take it.
  Under this proposal, you don't have to take that job. You don't have 
to take a similar, suitable job. So basically it throws out the concept 
that people should be encouraged, before they start getting Federal 
benefits, if the availability is there, to move laterally and even move 
up. No. Instead, you can take a lesser paying job where you are less 
productive and the taxpayer comes in and pays you $5,000 to do it.
  You don't have to remain in the community. One of the keys to the 
whole concept of trade adjustment was that you would remain in the 
community. This is a bill that is structured around the concept of 
trying to keep people and communities vibrant when they are hit by a 
huge trade event. That grew out of the textile and clothing fights, 
problems not only in the South but in the North.
  In my State, where we had all our shoe factories closed, all our 
textile mills closed, we have recovered dramatically because the people 
who were working in those textile mills and those shoe mills moved into 
industries which were competitive and which involved being retrained. 
Actually they ended up, in most instances, with higher paying jobs; 
certainly their kids did. By staying in those communities, they are 
being productive citizens. That is a concept.
  Under this bill, you can leave the State, move across the country, 
and take a job somewhere else. And if it pays you less than what your 
old job paid you, even though there may be lots of jobs in the 
community that paid you more, you just wanted a job that paid you less, 
the taxpayers pay you $5,000 for taking that job and for leaving your 
community. It is an incentive to leave your community rather than an 
incentive to stay.
  It does not require any showing of need before the person gets this 
money. It is just basically a payment. If you meet the requirement of 
$50,000, you get paid.
  There are a lot of people out there who might have personal assets, 
wealth, or who may be part of a family who has an income who certainly 
doesn't need a $5,000 subsidy coming from the Federal Government.
  Other taxpayers are working hard. There should be, obviously, some 
threshold standard to meet as to assets which the person has, or as to 
what their income is as a family, rather than simply sending them the 
money.
  A steelworker might get laid off from a steel plant. He or she may go 
to work for his or her son who runs a construction company, take a 
significant cut in pay, have the taxpayers pay a $5,000 supplement.
  Basically, this is a great deal for the son. He gets an employee with 
$5,000 of the cost of that employee picked up by the taxpayers. No 
arm's length necessity, no limitations on arm's length transactions, no 
requirement that they be arm's length, no requirement that there be any 
review for the purposes of fraud or abuse.
  There could be all sorts of deals made out there--and I can see them 
actually occurring--where somebody closes a plant, alleges it is trade 
adjustment, reopens another facility, or has somebody else reopen 
another facility--I am not talking large numbers of people here maybe--
and they work it out for a couple years where these employees will get 
this $5,000 payment from the taxpayers and they do not have to pay it. 
As a result, they have a huge windfall and a gaming of the system. It 
is a very distinct possibility.
  Of course, without the arm's length transaction, there are all sorts 
of implications for the ways this could be gamed by somebody. One does 
not even have to be that creative to game the system.
  The actual language of this section is poorly drafted, to be kind, 
and has significant problems substantively in its application beyond 
the policy problems--beyond the huge policy problems--of being a 
totally new approach to how we address our productivity as an economy 
and how we approach market forces in our economy.
  It is important to remember that the TAA proposal had some core 
purposes. I alluded to them, but one of them is, of course, to retrain 
people who are dislocated. It has had tremendous success in this area. 
In fact, in 2001, 75 percent of dislocated workers who sought service 
got jobs and averaged 100 percent of their predislocation earnings. 
Furthermore, 86 percent were still working after 6 months in those new 
jobs.
  The theme of trade adjustment is: Give people training so they can 
move to a new job when they lose a job and have that job be a better 
job. That is logical; that makes sense.
  Unfortunately, this proposal says: No, we are going to tell people 
when they lose their job, to get a job that pays them less, which means 
they are less productive; and it also probably means they have chosen a 
different type of activity that is maybe more lifestyle appropriate to 
them, but they are doing it all at a subsidy from the taxpayers.
  It is not too farfetched to presume that if you are 50 years old and 
you lose your job through trade adjustment and you are working in the 
Northeast that you may want to go to Florida or you may want to go to 
Arizona or New Mexico because you are tired of the snow, you are tired 
of the winters. All that shoveling does catch up with you when you get 
a little older sometimes and trying to get your car started in the cold 
weather.
  Madam President, you can see where this proposal is going, basically, 
to create a huge incentive for people to leave those communities in the 
North, move to the Sun Belt, take jobs that pay significantly less, 
have the taxpayers send them $5,000 as a benefit, and go into, 
basically, semiretirement. We could almost call this the ``Disney World 
Employment Act.'' Disney World is going to be overwhelmed with people 
in their fifties who want to come down and maybe do the Adventure Ride 
and the Jungle 3 days a week and spend the rest of the time enjoying 
Florida's weather and golf courses and get a $5,000 bonus.

  That is not the concept of trade adjustment. If somebody wants to do 
that, that is fine, but the guy or woman who is out there working on a 
factory line somewhere paying taxes or working in a restaurant paying 
taxes or working in a computer company paying taxes should not have to 
subsidize that sort of mismanagement of our economy, that sort of 
activity which is going to basically redirect

[[Page S4380]]

productivity to nonproductive activity and take tax dollars to do it.
  The way the bill is drafted flies in the face of all the basic policy 
we have passed in Congress relative to age discrimination. Basically, 
the concept of age discrimination we passed has been that when people 
hit age 50 or 55 and want to work, they should not be discriminated 
against in maintaining and improving their position in the workplace.
  What this bill says is: When you reach age 50, we are going to create 
an economic incentive for you to reduce your productivity and to reduce 
your position in the workplace. It is totally inconsistent with the Age 
Discrimination Act and the Older Americans Act because it is basically 
subscribing to a theory that when you hit 50, you should be pushed into 
a job that pays you less and have the taxpayers come along and 
subsidize it.
  That is the opposite of what we thought the Age Discrimination Act 
was. The purpose of the Age Discrimination Act was when somebody 
reaches 50, they cannot be pushed out of their job because of their age 
and they should be encouraged to continue to improve in their 
productivity by growing in their job.
  The language says if a person is over 50 and loses their job, we do 
not have any confidence they can find another job that is going to pay 
them more; we do not have any confidence they can go through trade 
adjustment training and improve their position; we do not believe what 
we said in the Age Discrimination Act or the Older Americans Act.
  No, rather, this language believes you cannot teach an old dog new 
tricks. So instead of trying to teach him new tricks, we are going to 
pay him $5,000 a year to forget everything he knew, everything he 
learned at his workplace, and take a lesser job. What an outrageous 
policy that is.
  On the specifics, this language, first, is terribly drafted because 
it has no training requirement, no requirement that similar and 
suitable jobs be taken, no requirement you remain in the community, no 
requirement that it be based on necessity, no requirement for arm's 
length, no requirement you check for fraud and abuse, no requirement 
there be a necessity, some sort of test as to whether or not the person 
should get the $5,000, and it does not protect anybody else except 
people over age 50 and actually creates an incentive which flies in the 
face of all the age policy, antidiscrimination language we passed in 
this Congress for the last 10, 15, 20 years.
  Other than that, it is a great idea. Beyond those specific problems 
in the drafting, there is a bigger issue at stake and it goes to 
something I mentioned earlier and have alluded to, and that is the 
question as to how our economy remains resilient.
  I happen to believe, and I think there are a lot of people who agree 
with this, especially ironically in Europe and in Japan today, that one 
of the key elements of the resiliency of our economy is the flexibility 
of our workforce and the fact that we have a workforce which is dynamic 
and is capable of moving with the times from jobs to jobs which are 
more and more competitive.
  I take my State as the classic example. Twenty years ago in my 
State--maybe 30 years ago now--we were a textile, woolen mill, shoe 
factory State, where most of the people worked in large factories. In 
fact, up through the middle part of the last century, we had the 
largest continuous mill in the world in Manchester, NH. It was built in 
the 1800s and functioned right into the 1900s. Then everybody moved to 
the South. All our textile mills closed, our shoe mills closed, and 
they took all this business down south where they could get a different 
wage rate.
  So New Hampshire had to adjust. I remember when I was growing up in 
Nashua, NH, we lost our single biggest employer. They left the city and 
we had to adjust. So those people in the mills that had been textile 
and shoe mills had to find something else to do. They started moving 
into technology-related activities. Slowly, we developed this 
technology-based economy to the point where today more people on a per 
capita basis work in technology-based activities in New Hampshire than 
in any other State in the country.
  What has been the practical impact? It has meant that we went from a 
per capita income which was in the mid-thirties--relative to other 
States we were about 35th, 36th in the country in the 1960s and 1970s--
to a per capita income which is now fourth in the country. That has 
been a function of the fact that we have not changed our people but we 
have retrained our people. Our people have shown the initiative and the 
creativity to take new jobs, different jobs, and people have come to 
New Hampshire to employ them. Jobs have been created in New Hampshire, 
and we have created an economic climate where we have seen this huge 
expansion.
  This is not a unique New Hampshire story. This is an American story. 
We, as a culture, are constantly moving through different forms of 
value-added activity where we create new concepts, new initiatives, 
whether it is in the technology area or whether it is in the medical 
area or whether it is in the widget area or whether it is in the 
Starbucks area. There is always a new idea in America that is creating 
jobs and activity.
  Regrettably, on the other side of the coin there are quite often 
industries which have not kept up with the times or which can no longer 
compete for some reason with some international company that maybe is 
able to do something at a lower wage.
  Those people who are in those jobs for the most part find themselves 
with opportunities in other industries which are growing. We have not 
pursued the Italian model where, when you get a job, you have that job 
for life, literally have it for life, and that company cannot fire you, 
or the French model which essentially says, when you get a job, first 
you do not have to work too hard and, second, if you lose that job you 
are basically taken care of as if you still had the job and you get to 
retire very early.

  In fact, I remember the truckdrivers in France about 3 years ago 
struck because they wanted to be able to retire at full pay when they 
were 55. Well, the life expectancy has extended quite a bit, so 
basically you had people working half their working lives and retired 
half their working lives, and they basically ran out of money. It 
becomes a pyramid that is inverted after a while in the classic Mark 
Twain story where there is only one person still working and everybody 
else is taking, which totally undermines productivity when there is 
that sort of approach to the economic structure of your country in what 
amounts to an alleged market economy.
  We have not pursued that course. We have instead pursued a course to 
maintain flexibility. We want people to be able to move up and always 
improve, and if somebody has gone on hard times because the competition 
from an international commodity has been overwhelming and they have 
lost their job because of it, we have trade adjustment to help train 
that person and move up and improve their life. We do not want to say 
to that person, you should move down in your economic activity, you 
should slow your productivity, you should reduce your efficiency, you 
should take a job which we, the taxpayers, or everybody in America, all 
taxpayers, have to end up subsidizing so that you can have a job that 
pays you less where you probably are asked to do less and where the 
skills which you have are probably not adequately used.
  If you as a citizen lose your job because of trade adjustment, 
whatever the job might be--steel is being talked about today so let's 
say it is steel--and there is not a similar job--if there was a similar 
job, theoretically you should take it but, of course, under this 
language you do not have to--but you decided that you wanted to go to 
Florida and become a greens keeper, that was always your dream and you 
were 50 years old and you thought you might be running out of time and 
you wanted to be on that golf course every day and play a little golf 
when you were not working on the golf course, or maybe be a part-time 
golf pro, that is your right. You can do that, but there is absolutely 
no reason that we should come along and, as a society, subsidize your 
taking that position and doing that job which basically you are 
overqualified to do.
  You could do something else if you wanted to that would pay you 
significantly more and which would be much better in the sense of the 
overall economy potentially.

[[Page S4381]]

  This is one of the worst ideas to come down the pike in a long time. 
It, obviously, arises out of a philosophy which is attracted to the way 
things occur in France and in Italy. It is a 1950s form of economics 
which was in vogue at one time, sort of a quasi-socialist view of the 
world which says essentially that someone should always be able to 
receive a benefit from the government, even if they are making choices 
which are basically counter to what the government policy should be.
  It is a view of the world which seems to have incredible disregard 
for those Americans who are working and who are paying taxes, because 
it is essentially saying to those Americans who are working hard every 
day and paying taxes, we are going to subsidize someone to the tune of 
$5,000 to take a job they do not necessarily need to take in many 
instances, but we are going to subsidize them, and then we are not 
going to ask that person to train. We are not going ask that person to 
take a similar job. We are not going to ask that person to stay in the 
community. We are not going to find out whether that job was agreed to 
at arm's length. We are not going to check on the abuse. We are not 
going to check on even whether the person needs the job from a 
financial situation. We are simply going to pay that person $5,000 to 
take less of a job, simply because they were allegedly put out of work 
as a result of a trade event and because they are over 50 years of age.
  It delivers the wrong message to somebody who is working pretty hard, 
who is under 50 years old and happens to lose their job because they do 
not have this opportunity. It clearly delivers the wrong message to 
somebody who is working very hard trying to make ends meet, paying a 
significant amount of their income in taxes, and suddenly finds they 
are supporting someone to the tune of a $5,000 benefit that creates 
less efficiency, less marketplace productivity, and undermines the 
basic concept of our approach as a nation to how one remains vibrant in 
a competitive world.
  So this language, I would hope, would be deleted. Tomorrow we will 
have a vote on it. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senate, and 
especially the staff of the Senate, for listening.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
Democratic amendments in order following the Torricelli amendment be a 
Landrieu amendment regarding maritime workers, a Harkin amendment 
regarding child labor, and a Reed of Rhode Island amendment regarding 
secondary worker TAA benefits. These, of course, will be interspersed 
with the Republican amendments, if they choose to offer them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________