Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)

[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.

____________________