[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4434-S4450]
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 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.
       Gregg amendment No. 3427 (to amendment No. 3401), to strike 
     the provisions relating to wage insurance.


                           Amendment No. 3427

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 90 
minutes of debate on Gregg amendment No. 3427.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as we go through the details of this 
debate, I think it would be well for us to take a moment at the 
beginning to look at the overall situation we face and try to put this 
debate into some kind of context.
  A fundamental principle that we need to remember in all of these 
conversations and discussions is this: All money comes from the 
economy. It does not come from the budget. It does not come from the 
actions of the Congress. It comes from the economy. If there were no 
underlying economy, there would be no money for the Federal Government 
to allocate. We have seen governments around the world that have tried 
to create money with no economy by passing budgets, and we have seen 
the disaster that occurs.
  So the fundamental principle that we need to address, to begin with, 
is what are we doing that will help the economy grow? What are we doing 
with trade promotion that will make the American economy stronger? If 
we can always keep that in mind as we address these various amendments, 
we will not do harm to our Government or what it is we are trying to 
accomplish for our citizens.
  The next principle that follows from that one is this: The most 
significant thing we can do to help the economy grow is to increase 
productivity--increase productivity of capital, of labor, of our money, 
that it is invested in the right places, so that we do not do things 
that will cause the economy to be less productive than it would be 
otherwise.
  These are two very strong fundamentals. We must keep the economy 
strong and growing. The way to keep the economy strong and growing is 
to increase productivity. That brings us to the Gregg amendment.
  The Gregg amendment would strike out a wage subsidy program that is 
currently in the bill that is clearly antiproductive. That is, the bill 
as it currently stands, would decrease American worker productivity in 
ways that we have already seen historically demonstrated in other 
countries. We can go, particularly, to the European countries and 
discover that they have problems with productivity, and they have 
problems with new job creation. One of the reasons they have problems 
is that they have structurally built into their economy a subsidy for 
nonproductive worker activity. It sounds very benign--indeed 
beneficial--to say to a worker: well, you have lost your job and 
therefore we will tide you over to another situation until you can get 
back on your feet. We have unemployment compensation for that. We have 
other safety net provisions.
  But the Europeans, by and large, have adopted the notion that we not 
only tide you over, we make you whole and keep you in your present 
income circumstance regardless of our employment circumstance. I had 
this brought home very dramatically when the company that I ran came 
into difficulties and lost some clients and had to face laying off some 
people--ultimately including me. One of my employees, who was in our 
European subsidiary, said this with a complete straight face, not 
understanding how America works: How many months do we get from the 
Government in terms of maintaining our present salaries when this 
company fails?
  I said: None.
  He said: In the country where I am working, they get a year and a 
half to 2 years of continuation at present salary.
  I said: Sorry, you are working for an American company--and he had 
come back here from Europe--and you are here in America. You have to 
find another job.
  He did. He not only found another job, he found a better job than the 
one he had with me. I had to find another job as my company failed. I 
did.
  If we had been under the circumstances of the language that is in 
this bill, we could have said to ourselves that we did not have any 
pressure to find another job; we could be subsidized where we were. We 
did not need to move forward. We could go just

[[Page S4435]]

as things were, and the economy, as a whole, magnified from this 
example, would become less productive.

  Putting it into context again, looking at it as a general principle, 
here are the principles: If the economy is not strong, we will not have 
any money to allocate. If the economy is not seeing increased 
productivity every year, it will not remain strong, and we can look at 
our European friends and say, if we do what they have done, in the name 
of compassion for our workers, we will end up hurting our workers, our 
economy, and our Government.
  Sometimes it takes the spur of a little bit of pressure to keep 
Americans going. But our historic pattern has been that the strong 
economy helps not only the people at the top but, foremost, it helps 
the people at the bottom. Keeping them in a temporary position of 
stability ultimately produces long-term detriment to the economy and to 
the individuals themselves. For that reason, I support the Gregg 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Mr. Gregg.
  Let me say, first of all, that this bill represents a very balanced 
compromise between Democrats and Republicans. I have worked hard to 
defeat some amendments that I view as killer amendments, I am 
disappointed that this amendment--which I also view as a killer 
amendment--has even been offered. This amendment would strike an 
important provision in the TAA bill--wage insurance. Wage insurance, as 
many now know, gives an incentive to displaced workers to find 
employment more quickly. It does this by cushioning them against income 
losses they might experience after losing a job and starting again in a 
new field. Now, there have been some misstatements about when wages 
insurance was added to this bill. I have heard some Members suggest 
that this was added after the markup. That is simply not true.
  Wage insurance was included in the original bill introduced by myself 
and Senators Bingaman and Daschle last July. And it was open to debate 
at the Finance Committee markup last December. As a part of a 
compromise with Senators Grassley and Gramm, we have all agreed to make 
this program a pilot program to see if it works. If it does, I suspect 
we many want to broaden the program. If it does not, I expect that 
Congress will end this program. But it is hard to argue against, at a 
minimum, giving this widely-supported program a chance. So how does it 
work?
  We have drafted this as a pilot program for older workers. Due to 
their long tenure in a single job or industry, older workers tend to be 
the hardest TAA participants to reemploy and the most likely to 
experience significant earnings losses in a new job. So, under our 
bill, any worker who is at least 50 years old and certified eligible 
for TAA can choose to participate in the wage insurance program.
  To qualify for wage insurance, a worker must take a new job that pays 
less than the old one within the first 26 weeks of regular unemployment 
insurance. By opting for wage insurance, a worker agrees to forego the 
18 months of additional income support the could get under traditional 
TAA. Wage insurance lasts 2 years and is capped at $5,000 per year. A 
worker would not be eligible for wage insurance if he made over $50,000 
per year. Now, why should we try a wage insurance program as part of 
TAA?
  First, I would note that this is an issue that has been championed by 
Both Republican and Democratic leaders, and by academics. A number of 
Republicans, including Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Zoellick--as 
members of the Trade Deficit Review Commission--and former USTR Carla 
Hills, have supported wage insurance. Alan Greenspan has also expressed 
support for such a program. These prominent individuals support wage 
insurance because it uses market incentives to shorten the period of 
unemployment.
  Second, this is an innovative way to get hard-to-employ people back 
to work faster. The idea behind wage insurance is that a worker will be 
more willing to take a lower paying job--and get back into the 
workforce sooner--if someone is making up part of the difference 
between the old and new wage. After a year or two of experience on the 
job, wages tend to rise, reducing the long-term wage losses.
  Third, this program actually saves money. During the 26 weeks a 
worker receives unemployment insurance, they can choose traditional TAA 
benefits or they can get a job and opt for wage insurance. The choice 
is up to the worker, but on average providing wage insurance will cost 
less than providing traditional TAA benefits. By getting people back 
into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will reduce unemployment 
rolls, reduce traditional TAA participation, and reduce overall costs 
to the government. Basically, if a worker certified for TAA takes a job 
before the end of his 26-week unemployment insurance period, the money 
that would have gone to fund income support starting in week 27 is 
instead used to pay the wage insurance. The difference is that the 
total amount of wage insurance a worker could receive is much less than 
the cost of traditional TAA benefits. One year of TAA income support at 
an average of $250 per week is $13,000, while wage insurance is capped 
at $5,000 per year. There are additional savings because the government 
will also not be paying for training.

  Fourth, on-the-job training works. Studies show that on-the-job 
training is better for both employers and employees. Wage insurance 
gives workers the incentive to take entry level jobs and train on the 
job and it gives employers more control over the kind of training that 
employees receive.
  I would also like to respond to some of the criticisms raised last 
night about the wage insurance program. First, critics have suggested 
that wage insurance will give people an incentive to lower their 
productivity, that wage insurance will persuade workers to turn down 
good-paying jobs that use their skills in favor of underpaid dream jobs 
like a fly-fishing instructor or a Disneyland worker. That seems pretty 
far-fetched to me. Workers in their 50s have kids in college, 
retirement nest-eggs to build, and mortgages to pay off. Research shows 
that older workers are the most likely to have obsolete job skills that 
do not lead to well-paying jobs they need to meet these obligations. I 
expect that these workers will take the best job they can get.
  We have an example in my own state of Montana. Last year the Asarco 
lead smelter closed in East Helena. Most of the workers have been with 
the plant many years and are in their late 40s or older. There are no 
more lead smelting jobs in the U.S. where they could match their wages 
and use their skills. Most ended up starting again in jobs that paid 
much less--if they could find jobs at all. This wage insurance program 
could have helped many of them get back on their feet faster. In any 
event, I would emphasize that this is a pilot. If it turns out that 
critics are right and wage insurance leads to a glut of fly fishing 
instructors, the program can be ended after the 2-year trial. But I 
don't think that is what we will see.
  The second criticism made of wage insurance is that it is 
inconsistent with the purpose of TAA, which is to provide retraining. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of TAA is not 
training for its own sake. The purpose of TAA is to get trade-impacted 
workers back to work as quickly as possible by helping them get new 
skills. Wage insurance serves that goal, because it encourages on-the-
job training. And on-the-job training is the best way to learn new job 
skills.
  Finally, we have heard that this wage insurance program is a form of 
age discrimination. Giving older workers first crack at an alternative 
to traditional TAA is not age discrimination. But if this is truly a 
serious concern, I would be happy to amend this provision, and expand 
wage insurance to workers of all ages.
  Mr. President, in concluding, let me say that there have been several 
Members who have criticized TAA in the last several days. They suggest 
it does not work. Yet they reject new bipartisan ideas--like wage 
insurance--that are offered as alternatives to TAA. I don't understand 
that. This amendment puts at grave risk the bipartisan compromise that 
has been struck in this bill. I oppose the amendment and I hope my 
colleagues will work hard to defeat it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S4436]]

  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in a few moments I believe there are other 
Members coming over to speak, but let me outline once again some of the 
problems of this language. Remember, the way this is structured is that 
if one loses their job as a result of trade activity, they can take 
another job that pays less, and then the taxpayers pay them $5,000 a 
year for taking a job that pays less if they are over 50 years of age. 
There is no training requirement language.
  There is no requirement that if there is a similar suitable job that 
pays the same, you take that. Say you lost your job at a manufacturing 
industry which was trade affected, and there was another job down the 
street in the manufacturing industry, in the same business, but that 
company had been able to compete effectively. You can take a job there 
at the same amount. There is no requirement you must take that; you can 
work for your cousin, brother, anyone, take a less paying job, and get 
paid $5,000 from the taxpayer to do that.
  There is no requirement to remain in the community. A key in the 
trade adjustment language is that workers remain in the community. The 
concept was to revitalize the community through the trade adjustment 
language. There is no requirement to do that. I can see a lot of people 
losing their jobs--hopefully not a lot--in the Northeast or the Chicago 
area or the northern part of the country. Say they are 50 years old. 
They will say: Hey, I'm out of here; I'm going south where it is warm. 
I will get a job being an assistant golf pro, which is what I always 
wanted to do, and I will get $5,000 from the taxpayers to do that. 
There is no requirement to remain in the community.
  There is no requirement for economic damage. In other words, there is 
no requirement that you need the money. There is a $50,000 payment 
level, but if you have a lot of assets or your spouse happens to have a 
high income, you still can benefit from this program.
  There is no arm's length requirement. I can see a situation where an 
agreement may have been reached in the small business just having tough 
times. They close the store and open across the street, and they get a 
$5,000 subsidy. Maybe it is just a family situation and you work the 
system so you can go to work for your son who is running a construction 
business. The chances to manipulate the system because there is $5,000 
of taxpayer money pouring in to support you are very significant.
  There are a lot of structural problems as well as philosophical 
problems that we as a society are going to begin to pay people to be 
less productive. That is a concept which goes against American 
entrepreneurship.
  I would like to yield to the Senator from Missouri, but I believe we 
are going back and forth.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Grassley and I have to go to a Finance Committee 
meeting in 8 minutes. I would like Senator Grassley to have the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Obviously, the Senator is the leader on the floor, and we 
certainly recognize that right.
  I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The Senator from Montana has laid out very clearly why this amendment 
must be defeated. This is a carefully crafted compromise. The year 2002 
is not like previous years in the Senate when we have devoted a lot of 
bipartisanship to trade agreements. There is bipartisanship, but it is 
not as certain that we will pass a bill as in the previous 25 years 
when similar legislation passed.
  I emphasize what Senator Baucus said: This is a carefully worked out 
agreement. It may not be entirely to the liking of Senator Baucus or 
perhaps not entirely to my liking, but we have to stick together to get 
this legislation passed. It is probably one of the most important 
pieces of legislation to be considered in the Senate.
  Although the Senator from New Hampshire has some valid arguments, I 
cannot support an amendment that upsets the balance of the package by 
striking these wage insurance provisions. There are things in the 
package that Members on each side may not like. It is their prerogative 
to amend whatever they see necessary. I cannot support stripping out 
this section of the package.
  Another reason is, wage insurance provisions in the legislation have 
not been tested, as some would say. Somewhere along the line, new ideas 
become law. Just because this is a new idea does not mean it is a bad 
idea.
  I will read what Ambassador Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade 
Representative for President George Bush, said last year, a long time 
after she left her position as Trade Representative, when she appeared 
before the Senate Finance Committee:

       We should explore the concept of wage insurance to 
     supplement the incomes of displaced workers--whatever the 
     cause--who take an entry-level job in a different, more 
     promising sector at lower pay. This would respond to workers' 
     anxiety over near-term wage loss, encourage them to stay 
     productive in the work force and obtain the training that has 
     proved most effective--which is training on the job.

  Carla Hills went on to say in a report called ``Getting Over the Fear 
of Free Trade'':

       The key goal of all of these ideas, as unconventional as 
     they may seem at first, especially to the U.S. business 
     community or the Republican Party, is straightforward. It is 
     to educate and motivate more Americans to stand up in defense 
     of open markets lest we lose the benefits that come from the 
     free flow of ideas, capital, and goods.

  We should listen to Ambassador Hills. I believe American anxiety 
about globalization stems in part from job instability. Wage insurance 
eases those fears.
  As we consider voting on this amendment, I ask Members on my side of 
the aisle to keep their eye on the ball. The ball happens to be trade 
promotion authority, a contract between the Congress of the United 
States and the President of the United States, negotiated for 270 
million Americans, a better world, a world that creates job 
opportunities. Trade creates jobs.
  As President Kennedy said, trade, not aid, when it comes to helping 
the rest of the world. The United States has full responsibility to 
look out for our interests, the interests of the American people, but 
also to be a leader in the world. Being a leader in the world involves 
our participation in not only the economic concerns of the world but 
maintaining the peace. One of the tools of maintaining peace is 
economic opportunity. The cooperation comes to the world because of 
people trading. We often brag about political leaders and diplomats 
doing so much for world peace. We obviously create an environment for 
world peace, but there is nothing that works more for world peace than 
opportunities for individuals to interact with other individuals around 
the world in a commercial way. That does more to break down barriers 
and establish world peace than anything else.
  Trade promotion authority is one of the three or four parts of this 
legislation. That is the 800-pound gorilla at which we ought to all be 
paying attention. It takes a carefully crafted compromise to get to 
that point. Some of the items in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act 
that people on my side of the aisle might not like--and wage insurance 
could be one--are very small compared to the ball that I am asking 
Members to keep their eye on--trade promotion authority.
  As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board said regarding trade 
promotion authority and freeing up trade around the world, as a result 
of the agreements we last endorsed in this body, the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, 1993, the Uruguay Round of Tariffs and Trades, 
1994, those have helped reduce costs to the American consumer by $4,000 
for a family of four.
  That is equal to more than we have given in tax cuts in recent years 
to American families. Think of the good that comes to the economy 
because we have an opportunity to export and our consumers have an 
opportunity to import. We have an opportunity to reduce costs because 
of increased efficiency. That is all going to come in the future, as it 
has in the past, 50-some years under the GATT arrangements, because we 
are going to give our President trade promotion authority.
  That is what we want our eye kept on. This compromise on trade 
adjustment assistance is part of that compromise.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will say this quickly and then I will 
yield to the

[[Page S4437]]

Senator from Missouri and then to the Senator from Tennessee, but I 
rarely disagree with the Senator from Iowa. I consider him to be one of 
the best Senators in the Senate. He is certainly a thoughtful and 
effective Member of the Senate and a strong leader, especially for free 
trade. I certainly support his commitment to the trade promotion 
authority, but the price of that trade promotion authority should not 
be the creation of a brandnew entitlement which has explosive potential 
and is regrettably not a new idea. In fact, it is a very old idea. It 
is a European industrial socialist policy idea which has failed in 
Europe, failed in the old countries. We should not bring it to the new 
country.
  I yield to the Senator from Missouri 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I say 
to my good friend from Iowa, I know he is a devoted, committed advocate 
of free trade. Coming from agricultural States such as his and mine, we 
know our farmers absolutely depend upon access to the world market to 
make sure they gain their return from the marketplace rather than from 
the mailbox. When we see trade decline, we see agricultural prices drop 
to terribly low levels.
  I think the problems we have in agriculture are largely attributable 
to the collapse in Southeast Asia. We are only going to get the markets 
back and our income back and the costs of the farm bill down when we 
open up more trade agreements and see healthy trade with our partners 
throughout the world.
  Having said that, I come to the floor as a very strong proponent of 
free trade. It is not just good for farmers; it is good for the people 
who work in the industries. The exporting industries pay 13 percent to 
15 percent more than the nonexporting industries.
  Our service sector is a leader in the world in exporting services of 
all kinds, and we benefit from that. When I go out to shop every day at 
home in Mexico, MO, or St. Louis or Kansas City, I have better priced 
goods and better quality goods because there is competition. I buy 
American-made goods every chance I can if they are available. But I 
know I am getting the best price and I am getting the best quality 
because they have to compete. So every one of us, as a consumer, 
benefits from the competition through increased choice and lower 
prices. That is why I think trade promotion is so important.
  That is why I am so disappointed today to see the trade promotion 
bill has been hijacked. This is no longer a trade promotion bill; it is 
a welfare entitlement bill which talks about trade promotion, gives the 
President some authority, and then takes it away.
  We failed to table the Dayton-Craig amendment. There were strong 
arguments made for that amendment: We can't give up our sovereignty.
  Let me tell you what it does. It essentially says to any country that 
is even thinking about negotiating a deal with the President or his 
Trade Representative: Forget about it. Forget about it because whatever 
you negotiate with the President, the Congress can take it away when 
they come back. That essentially kills the authority of the President 
to negotiate a trade agreement, authority that previous Presidents have 
had in recent years as we made progress toward getting free trade.
  I wish we would take the Andean Trade Promotion Act out of this bill. 
Everybody knows we need it. Today is the day one deadline occurs. We 
need to reassure our partners in the Andean region that we want free 
trade with them, to maintain it and not to see the tariffs come back. 
We ought to pass that and send this turkey back to get some wings and 
feathers on it so it will fly because this will not fly.
  One of the amendments we have before us by the Senator from New 
Hampshire is just one step we ought to take to clean it up. As the 
Senator from New Hampshire has so eloquently stated, this is a brandnew 
subsidy without checks and balances. It does not guarantee that people 
will get the benefits and the economic opportunities that we should 
seek. There is no limitation based on necessity. The subsidy would go 
to an older worker who simply chooses to quit the rat race.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, you can get a wage 
subsidy for doing what you want--a former office worker could join her 
daughter's catering firm or a factory worker who treats a trade-related 
plant closing as an opportunity not to take an equal job in the 
community but to take early retirement, move to Florida, and maybe 
serve as a greeter at Wal-Mart or a groundskeeper at a golf course so 
he could have a couple of rounds of golf in and have a little wage 
subsidy.
  I have nothing against that. I know some of my colleagues like to 
play golf, but I would sure hate paying them for their privilege of 
playing golf. My colleagues in this body who are good golfers do so on 
their own time, after they put in the 60-hour workweek, so it does not 
hold for them. But to encourage people without limit to do what they 
wish and take a subsidy along with the other entitlement programs is a 
bad precedent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from New 
Hampshire. There are many other good arguments. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Senator from New Hampshire and help us go back to the job 
of cleaning this bill up to make it a trade promotion rather than an 
entitlement promotion bill.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his excellent 
thoughts, and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of 
Senator Gregg. I think the debate on trade promotion authority is a 
classic example of something that used to be nonpartisan, as I 
understand it, and that is trade--as was the consensus I thought we 
developed that I believed was a good thing for our country. It is also 
an example of how often nowadays it seems we are asked to do some bad 
things in order to do something that is any good.
  We are urged to keep our eyes on the ball, which is trade promotion 
authority, they say. I hope we all agree that free trade is good, that 
trade promotion authority is good. I think standing by itself it would 
pass overwhelmingly. But I am beginning to wonder what the ball is.
  If, in fact, we are taking the first steps toward the Federal 
Government sending somebody a check for their insurance coverage, if we 
are taking the first step toward the Federal Government providing a 
wage differential for this group, that group, and then the next group--
to me that is the ball. As important as trade promotion authority is, I 
am not sure I am willing to do that evil in order to do the other good.
  If the idea is to load down something that is so clearly beneficial 
to this economy and this country such as trade promotion authority, the 
Andean trade agreement, with so many things that are so onerous that it 
is going to defeat the underlying bill--if that is the purpose, I think 
those who seek to carry that out are very close to accomplishing their 
goal.
  It would be a pity, it would be a bad thing for this country, but I 
am afraid that is what we are looking at. Trade promotion authority and 
the Andean trade agreement are being held as hostages for a series of 
new entitlement programs, which really have nothing to do with trade 
but have everything to do with a social agenda which, as the Senator 
from New Hampshire pointed out, has failed in other parts of the world. 
While they are scrambling to try to be more like us, we are scrambling 
to try to be more like them, it seems.

  If there is anything we ought to agree to in this body, it is the 
importance of trade promotion authority and the Andean trade agreement, 
at a time when our friends to the south of us, the Colombian 
Government, are about to be taken over by narcotraffickers, if they 
have their way, and have the first narcogovernment in our hemisphere 
instead of the democracy that is there now. Is anything more important 
than stopping that? I don't know.
  We have a relationship with the Government of Ecuador where we have a 
forward operation location to assist us in drug eradication. Fighting 
drugs, terrorism, there is nothing more important than that. And 
everyone knows we need to have a trading relationship with these folks 
who are trying to do the right thing, trying to impose the rule of law 
and other beneficial things that we stand for in their countries,

[[Page S4438]]

and yet that is being held hostage to these new entitlement programs.
  The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, of course, has to do 
with one of the more onerous ones, which is an open invitation to 
outright fraud and abuse. Every year we come up with new assessments of 
how many billions of dollars we pay out to people who are dead or who 
are defrauding the Government or whatnot. This is an open invitation to 
do that. It is a program that would make the European leftists blush, 
and yet we are trying to move in that direction. But it is only one 
part of the onerous provisions that have loaded up this trade promotion 
authority bill.
  So in order to do something good for our country, good for consumers, 
good for folks in Tennessee, who go to the store and want to buy goods 
a little bit cheaper--in order for us to do that, we are being asked to 
sign off on a bill that would triple the cost of trade adjustment 
assistance. We all agree that we need some trade adjustment assistance, 
but now we are being asked, in a time of deficit, in a time of war, to 
triple this program for this 2 percent of workers.
  For this constituent group, in this election year, we are being asked 
to do that, to give this group of people--this small group of people--
an additional 6 months of unemployment compensation. The average guy 
who gets laid off gets 6 months. So now this 2 percent would get up to 
2 years. So this group goes from 6 months to 2 years, and it expands 
the number of reasons they do not have to undergo any additional 
training.
  Trade assistance was originally designed as a training program to 
help people get a new job. This bill has over a half dozen exceptions 
where people do not even have to take training, including a provision 
that says you do not have to take training if there is another 
comparable job. If there is another comparable job, why do you need 
trade assistance anyway?
  This bill would expand coverage to secondary workers, double or 
triple the number of people eligible. It creates a new program to pay 
farmers when commodity prices are below 80 percent of the previous 5-
year average and imports contribute in part to the decline in price.
  We just passed $190 billion in entitlement spending for farmers in 
the farm bill. This, in large part, duplicates that. There is a new 
program, a new bureaucracy in the office of the Department of Commerce. 
This program duplicates existing programs that provide assistance for 
communities. And it is a new bureaucracy in the process.

  All of this is at a cost of who knows what. Estimates have been all 
over the lot, but they are all based on assumptions that people would 
participate in this new program at the same level as they participated 
in the old program. This is a much more generous program. It stands to 
reason a much higher percentage of people are going to participate in 
it.
  So you are probably looking at $1 billion, or between $1 billion and 
$2 billion a year for a 10-year period, something like that, for 
something that could never pass on its own, something that no one would 
have the temerity to put in a piece of legislation. It is only because 
you are trying to hold free trade hostage, the Andean trade agreement 
hostage to this new group of entitlement programs.
  If this new wage guarantee provision, for example, really works out 
the way we are talking about--that it is open and rife with waste, 
fraud, and abuse--what are the chances of this new entitlement program 
being canceled? Zero. It never happens. It never will happen. What are 
the chances of it being expanded? Pretty good. It is up to $5,000 now 
for the wage differential. What are the chances of that coming in and 
getting more and more generous?
  Look at where trade adjustment assistance has gone from when it was 
first passed to what is being proposed today. No one ever dreamed, when 
trade adjustment assistance was first passed, that somebody would be 
proposing that we would do things in terms of 70 percent of their COBRA 
or wage differential, or all these other things that are being 
proposed. The same thing will happen with this new list of 
entitlements.
  So I strongly urge adoption of the Gregg amendment. It would make a 
bad bill a little better. There are many of us who are tussling and 
grappling with something--and that I think all of America should be 
grappling with--and that is the balancing off of something so important 
as giving the President authority to get into the 21st century a little 
bit, and become a leader in this country, as we are supposed to be, in 
free trade, put our money where our mouth is, giving him trade 
promotion authority that our Presidents have had up until President 
Clinton, and get on with it.
  If we cannot compete in this world economy with all the advantages we 
have, I will be very surprised. We should not be afraid of it. As 
important as all that is, however, I am afraid there is an effort here 
to saddle it with things that are bad for this country, that are the 
camel's nose under the tent, things that would never pass on their own. 
I say we have to keep our eye on the ball.
  We are going to hold free trade hostage. We are going to hold our 
friends in our hemisphere--whom we ought to be trying to do everything 
to help--hostage in order to get a new array of social programs and 
guarantees and things that are old and tired and have failed in other 
parts of this world and should never be started in this one.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the assistant leader, 
Senator Nickles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant leader is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I compliment Senator Thompson for 
the speech he made as well as Senator Gregg from New Hampshire for this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would 
strike the wage subsidy program. I am glad we are going to have an up-
or-down vote on it; and I hope this amendment will be adopted 
overwhelmingly, because this wage subsidy program is a bad idea.
  There are a lot of bad ideas floating around. The Senator from 
Tennessee just mentioned a couple of them. It bothers me that evidently 
the Democrats who put together this package--and I say that because the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program passed in the Finance Committee 
without adequate discussion. We spent all day on trade promotion 
authority, and trade promotion authority passed, 18 to 3 in the Finance 
Committee. Trade adjustment assistance was rushed through the 
Committee. The two hour rule was raised and some would even question 
whether we finished it in time because of this objection, and whether 
it passed too late. There was not enough discussion. I am on that 
committee.
  Well, what is it? It is the Federal Government saying: if you lose 
your job, presumably because of trade, and you take another job, the 
Federal Government will come in and pick up half the difference if your 
second job is less money.
  I would like to have colleagues who support this come and defend it. 
Why are we doing this for so many of people? I question the wisdom of 
the proposal.
  I will just give you an example. What if you are a Senator whose wife 
just happens to work. Maybe it is a high-tech firm, which closes. 
Someone could say it was because of trade that it closed. And so she 
became unemployed, or became reemployed, and took a lesser paying job. 
So Uncle Sam is going to write my spouse a check for $5,000.
  As the Senator from Tennessee said, this is just an opening round. 
Proponents will attempt to expand this program, should it pass. Why are 
we going to have the Federal Government setting wage rates? And 
guaranteeing these wage rates? How ridiculous of an idea can it be? How 
socialistic can it be? Maybe people don't not like to use that word, 
but socialism is the Government setting wages and prices. This is 
pretty socialistic.
  I am embarrassed as to how bad this idea is. I compliment my 
colleague and friend from New Hampshire for raising this, pointing this 
out to the Senate.
  There is no income test. We could be writing checks for people who 
could have $1 million in assets. Presumably, if they lost a job and 
then took a lesser job, Uncle Sam will write them a check for half the 
difference in many cases, even if they are millionaires. What kind of 
sense does that make?

[[Page S4439]]

  I am embarrassed for the Senate. I am bothered by this process the 
majority leader has put in that says: To take up trade promotion, you 
also have to take trade adjustment assistance. Incidentally, when we 
are doing this, we will also put in a new wage subsidy program. We will 
have a brand-new benefit for trade adjustment assistance, including the 
Federal Government, for the first time ever, picking up 70 percent of 
health care costs not only for directly affected workers but for 
upstream workers as well, defined broadly enough to where no one knows 
how many hundreds of thousands of people might qualify for that 
benefit.
  In addition, we will have a brand-new wage subsidy paid for by 
taxpayers. I have an interest. I have a son. I have three daughters. 
They are all taxpayers, and I am too. They don't want to pay for this 
benefit. Their taxes are plenty high. All of a sudden, we are talking 
about new entitlements for people. Where is the money coming from? We 
have a deficit now.
  Somebody said: If passed, this new program is limited to $50 million. 
What proponents are trying to do is get this new entitlement started. 
Then we will see how much it costs 10 years from now, and supporters 
will probably try to raise the limit from $5,000 to such sums as 
necessary. You name it. Entitlements can grow like crazy. I would hate 
to think we would adopt this, and then 10 years from now find out we 
have a multibillion-dollar program and ask: Where did this come from?
  This was a partisan proposal jammed in on top of trade promotion, 
basically extortion, saying, if you don't give us this, we will not 
give you trade.
  The Senate needs to reject this proposal. This is a bad idea. When we 
talk about other countries, we encourage them to move to free markets. 
I am embarrassed that some of us are trying to move in their 
socialistic direction. Wow.
  As a matter of fact, I had a constituent in my office a few minutes 
ago. He was listening to the Senator from New Hampshire. I told him I 
had to join this debate. I explained the amendment. My constituent's 
response was: I can't believe they are trying to do this.
  This is about income redistribution where the Federal Government is 
paying wages, we will have a wage guarantee program. This is a wage 
subsidy program; that is exactly what this is. This is part of a very 
bad idea, a very bad process. It needs to be resoundingly rejected.
  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support the Gregg 
amendment and strike this brand-new entitlement program.
  If there are proponents, I would love to have a dialog and find out 
how this will work and find out if a millionaire could benefit from 
this program; and find out if someone's spouse, who maybe is from a 
very wealthy family, if they could benefit from this program; or find 
out, if I was working for $50,000, and I happened to be over 50 and I 
decided to take a job for $40,000, if I can use that money to cover my 
golf bets. The Senator from Missouri mentioned maybe this is good for 
the golfers. I happen to be a golfer. I like that idea. But I have 
never thought of the Federal Government paying for my golf side bets.
  I can't believe we are even considering this. What an embarrassment. 
This amendment should be passed, and it should be passed 
overwhelmingly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the other side is going to 
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas, and then we will go to 5 
minutes to the Senator from Arizona. We are alternating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, we yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I was asked 
by the White House and by the Republican leadership to try to negotiate 
a package that would allow us to pass trade promotion authority. In the 
process, I found myself in a position of having to either kiss an ugly 
pig on the mouth or send it off to the barbeque.
  Through our negotiations, we were able to drop the steel legacy 
provision. We also were able to dramatically reduce the proposed wage 
insurance program, cutting its funding level from $100 million to $50 
million and its authorization from 5 years to 2 years. But I am not 
going to stand here today and argue on behalf of the principle of wage 
insurance. I can tell my colleagues that as a conferee, I am going to 
oppose this provision, and I hope it will be removed.
  I believe that our leader and Senator Grassley and I are in the 
position where we have made an agreement, and therefore we must stick 
to it. I could stand here and say I am very unhappy that those who have 
entered into the agreement on the other side of the aisle nonetheless 
have found it convenient to continue to load more and more and more 
onto this wagon, to the point where the axle is about to break. But in 
my book, when you give your word, when you try to work out an 
agreement, when you try to make compromise work, you give up the luxury 
of coming back later and picking and choosing which provisions to 
support. In fact, it is sort of like fast track: you make a deal and 
you must stick by the whole package.
  This afternoon we are going to have several votes. First, we are 
going to have a vote on Senator Dodd's amendment, which effectively is 
the same amendment as the one offered yesterday by Senator Lieberman. 
If that amendment passes, I am off this wagon. We also are going to 
have a vote on adding back the steel legacy provision. If steel legacy 
costs are included in this bill, I am going to do everything in my 
power to kill this bill, even though I am for fast-track authority and 
believe it is critical. You simply reach a point where greed and 
irresponsibility so overwhelm the underlying cause that you just cannot 
tolerate it.

  There's a bigger point to all this, and that is the question of 
taking ownership. Quite frankly, I don't believe the chairman of the 
Finance Committee and the majority leader of the Senate have taken 
ownership of this trade promotion authority bill. I think we have had a 
game of piracy to try to see what can be gotten in return for this bill 
since they know that the President wants this bill and that it is in 
the national interest. They claim to be for the bill, but at every step 
along the way, we are having piracy committed against this bill.
  I gave my word when I signed on to the agreement. Had I been the 
principal instead of the negotiator, I am not sure I would have agreed 
to our agreement. In fact, I probably wouldn't have. But I did. 
However, if these other amendments pass, if the deal is not kept, if it 
is clear that this piracy is going to continue, then at that point I 
would feel free to vote my conscience.
  The point is that we have made an agreement. As appealing as it is to 
me to go back and undo the wage insurance part of it--a rotten, 
stinking part of it--I don't think that that would be responsible. But 
I will fight to get rid of this provision in conference and I hope that 
it will be dropped.
  I have taken some degree of ownership of this bill, and feel a 
responsibility for it. For this process to succeed, I believe that 
those of us who want fast-track authority--the majority leader, the 
minority leader, the chairman of Finance, the ranking member of 
Finance, and those Senators who want this bill--have to begin to show 
some ownership of and responsibility for the bill as negotiated.
  If we do not, and instead keep seeing efforts to pile on, we are 
going to kill this bill. For example, if steel legacy is added to this 
bill, it is dead. If the Dodd amendment, which is effectively the same 
vote we had on Lieberman, is added to this bill, we won't have trade 
promotion authority and I therefore will be off the wagon and out of 
the deal.
  Today, I am in the deal. As I said, I have taken on partial ownership 
of the bill. When you sign on to a compromise, when you take partial 
ownership, when you take responsibility, it means you have to stand up 
for the deal and vote against even those amendments that you otherwise 
would support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page S4440]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
dedicates a very small piece of what we gained from trade to help those 
people who lose from trade, get back on their feet, and that is really 
what this amendment does.
  The current TAA program helps some people but does not address some 
of the key problems people face; it leaves out too many other people 
altogether.
  We fix some of these flaws. When a plant shuts down or moves 
overseas, workers lose their livelihoods and families face the 
uncertainty of not knowing how they are going to pay for food or a 
mortgage, or take their child to the doctor.
  This bipartisan agreement will provide these workers with the 
opportunity to go back to community college to learn some new skills. 
They will receive unemployment insurance and subsidized health care to 
help them get through the difficult times and help them get a new job.
  To a 35-year-old worker facing a difficult circumstance of a lost 
job, this sounds like a potential lifeline. But for a 53-year-old 
closer to retirement age, and less likely to be able to transition into 
a new job or field, those benefits are largely an empty promise. And we 
know it.
  That is why we have worked so hard to keep the wage insurance 
provision in the bipartisan package we negotiated with Senators 
Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House. This provision was part of 
our agreement, and it must be retained.
  Wage insurance is a pilot program--that is all it is--to test a very 
powerful idea. It says to older workers, if you take a lower paying job 
than the one you lost, some of the money that you would have received 
in unemployment insurance will go to offset a portion of the wage loss 
you will suffer.
  By helping offset the loss of taking a lower paying job, wage 
insurance discourages dependency and encourages work. Wage insurance is 
not just compassionate policy, it is smart policy.
  By getting people back into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will 
reduce unemployment rolls and the overall cost to Government. In 
reality, the provision will cost nothing more than what the Government 
would have been paying in unemployment insurance because people will 
have to give up their unemployment benefits to get the wage insurance.
  This provision is prowork and it enjoys broad intellectual support on 
the left and on the right. In 1998, partly because of the unintended 
effects of trade, Congress established the U.S. Trade Deficit Review 
Commission. Among the key members of the Commission were President 
Bush's Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick; Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld; and George Becker, former President of the Steelworkers.
  This group doesn't agree on much. But wage insurance was one clear 
area of agreement. Here is what they had to say--a bipartisan 
commission:

       We recommend that Congress consider new ways to address the 
     broader cost of job displacement. Such consideration should 
     include assessing ways of filling the earnings gaps created 
     when new jobs initially pay less than previous jobs. As 
     discussed, wage insurance is one such option. It has the 
     advantage of encouraging displaced workers to accept new jobs 
     as quickly as possible.

  Here is another voice:

       It would be a great tragedy were we to stop the wheels of 
     progress because of an incapacity to assist victims of 
     progress. Our efforts should be directed at job skills 
     enhancement and retraining . . . and, if necessary, selected 
     income maintenance programs for those over a certain age, 
     where retraining is problematic.

  That is not a Democratic Senator speaking. That is Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan. In case my colleagues missed the translation, 
``income maintenance programs for those of a certain age'' is wage 
insurance. Alan Greenspan is talking about wage insurance. Wage 
insurance for older workers is exactly what we are talking about this 
morning.
  Finally, from a think tank:

       The proposed wage insurance program would strongly 
     encourage workers to quickly find new jobs.

  I will repeat that because it may resonate with some of my colleagues 
on the floor.

       The proposed wage insurance program would strongly 
     encourage workers to quickly find new jobs.

  That quote comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it comes as yet 
another endorsement of this amendment.
  Older workers who lose their jobs and are struggling to find a new 
one have enough uncertainty to worry about. They should not also have 
to worry about whether they can afford to take a new job. The wage 
insurance provision gives workers something more than an empty promise.
  We already scaled this proposal back from $100 million for each of 
the next 5 years to $50 million for 2 years. But we cannot afford to 
lose it entirely. It is a central component of the bipartisan agreement 
we made with Senators Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House.
  I urge my colleagues to keep this agreement intact and reject this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
of the Senator from New Hampshire to strike this wage subsidy provision 
from the bill. In my view, if it stays in the bill, it could well sink 
it. It would be difficult for me to support the bill on final passage 
if this provision is in it, notwithstanding my support for the bill. I 
admire the Senator from Texas because he was part of a group that 
negotiated portions of this bill that would be on the floor before us. 
He feels committed to supporting the version that was negotiated which 
includes this provision. Of course, he should do that. I think he also 
makes a good point to suggest that others who may be supporting other 
amendments need to keep their commitment in mind.
  But the statement here reminds me a little bit of the old politician 
that said that it is important for us to always stand on principle and, 
in certain situations, to even be able to rise above principle. That is 
what is involved here unfortunately. The principle is to have a free 
market with labor and capital, people freely able to be hired. And it 
is possible sometimes through government decisions that people lose 
their jobs, through competition that people lose jobs. It is even 
possible that if there is a tariff reduced as a result of a free trade 
agreement, that could result in somebody losing their jobs.
  People lose jobs for all kinds of reasons. The question, though, is 
whether or not we should make an exception and provide that certain 
people who work have rights more than others and are entitled to 
certain kinds of subsidy benefits in their wages as a result.
  If we decide that is a good idea, how are we going to explain to 
other workers that we are leaving them out in the cold? The reality is 
that this is a foot in the door that will create an argument for 
everybody, regardless of their circumstance, to have a wage subsidy 
like certain other countries in the world of GATT, competitors of ours 
who cannot compete as well because they have these kinds of government 
subsidy programs for wages. In fact, it is a transfer of payment from 
hard-working Americans, middle income Americans, to those who are more 
wealthy. It is blatant discrimination against hard-working Americans, 
an invitation to fraud and abuse. As I said, it is a very dangerous 
step toward Government control. It is theoretically capped, but we know 
the initial expenses will be a drop in the bucket compared to what it 
will cost over the years.
  Other constituencies will soon demand their own form of wage 
insurance, whether subsidies or other wage controls, and I think it 
would be virtually impossible to say no to them once we have 
established the principle. That is what I am talking about here--
principle. There is no limitation in this program based upon necessity. 
It is available to dislocated workers who simply choose to quit the rat 
race and take an easier job. There is no training requirement, and that 
was always a component of the program that has been supported here in 
the past by the Senate. The Trade Adjustment Act has always included a 
training component to train displaced workers for new and better jobs.
  But this wage subsidy program circumvents that and allows certain 
workers essentially to opt out.

[[Page S4441]]

  There is no consideration in this provision of whether there are 
suitable jobs available in similar circumstances. The older displaced 
worker is free to take the job, earn an entitlement, regardless of 
whether equivalent work is readily available. For whatever reason, 
family health or personal preference, the individual is free to pull up 
stakes and move anywhere in the country, take a job, and receive the 
subsidy.
  There are some who suggest that would benefit my sunshine State of 
Arizona. It would be pretty nice to quit the job in the Rust Belt and 
move to Arizona because of the subsidy provided in this bill.
  There is no protection against fraud and abuse. There is a perverse 
incentive in this provision for employers to reduce the wages they pay 
knowing the Federal subsidy will supplement their workers' income and 
make up the difference.
  There is no requirement the new employer and employee be at arm's 
length. This is a very critical provision rife for potential fraud and 
abuse. There is no inquiry permitted as to whether the new job, perhaps 
with a family member or friend, is a legitimate consequence of the 
displaced worker having to leave his former employment. Because the 
U.S. Government makes up the difference in wages, it is, as I say, rife 
with potential for fraud and abuse.
  We ought to go back to principle and not politics.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. I suggest my colleagues support the amendment of the Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. President, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley 
for their superb work so far on the trade bill.
  These are complex matters of policy, with potentially far-reaching 
consequences, that we are dealing with on this bill, and our two 
leaders on the Finance Committee have led us with foresight and wisdom. 
It is so important, as always, that we carefully balanced both the 
positive and the negatives of the legislation at hand.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I have taken our role, as 
Americans, in the global economic picture very seriously. Our 
leadership is crucial to the success of any efforts to open markets, 
whether in a multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization, 
or in a regional context, such as a proposed western hemispheric 
arrangement. And let us make no mistake about the absolute need to open 
markets, to ensure the freer mobility of capital, to guarantee everyone 
a chance at a more prosperous and more stable future.
  The underlying trade bill helps us meet this need, helps us fulfill 
our vital role as the global economic leader, by extending to the 
president the trade negotiating authority he needs to undertake more 
effectively the multilateral and other important negotiations that a 
stable global economy will require.
  Once the President has negotiated an agreement, he brings it back to 
us for our consideration. If we support the agreement he has 
negotiated, then we take another step into the future by opening more 
markets and further growing our economy.
  But the underlying trade bill also meets another highly important 
need: it gives us the resources and the authority to respond to those 
workers and those firms that will inevitably be displaced by the 
growing, changing economy.
  The wage insurance provision of the trade adjustment assistance 
package helps us do just that. It offers a helping hand to older 
Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the inevitable 
dislocations increased trade creates. It does so by recognizing the 
obvious reality that a time consuming return to school for job 
retraining may not be in the best interests of older workers who are 
close to retirement age. It also recognizes the reality that older 
workers have a much harder time than younger workers re-entering the 
job market, particularly at the same income level they enjoyed 
previously. It meets the needs of these older workers by allowing them 
to insure wage loss. To receive the benefits of wage insurance, the 
older worker foregoes the additional income support he could otherwise 
receive if he or she went back to school. Thus, the worker receives 
benefits while he or she re-enters the job market and without having to 
go back to school, which, again, for this worker may not be the best 
option given his or her age.
  I strongly support the wage insurance provisions of this bill, and I 
would also have supported an even more generous version of this 
provision.
  Yet, with this trade bill, we have all made compromises, for the sake 
of getting a good, comprehensive piece of legislation to send to the 
President's desk. Wage insurance is a much needed part of the TAA 
package. It is fair and it is responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gregg amendment as we 
proceed to that vote and remember that there is not a one-size-fits-
all, but that all of our workers need the special attention and the 
ability to move within the workforce in a way that is conducive to 
them, to their lifestyle, and particularly to their age. I thank the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Did the Senator yield back the remainder of time?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will make my statement and then we can go 
to the vote.
  First, I thank the many Members who have come to the Chamber and 
supported this amendment. There have been a number of points made that 
I think have been extremely appropriate as to the failure of the 
language in the bill and the need to have this amendment to correct it.
  I want to respond to a couple points made by the Democratic leader. 
First, this issue of the deal. A number of Members spoke and said this 
is a lousy idea. It is really not a very good policy, the concept of 
paying people to take less productive jobs, having the taxpayers pay 
people to take less productive jobs. This is not good policy, but I 
have to be for it because there was a deal agreed to.
  As far as I can tell, there were only six people in that room at the 
most. So maybe those six people have reached an agreement, and around 
here, if you give your word, you have to stand by it. I respect the 
people who came to the Chamber and said they are going to stand by 
their word.
  For the rest of us, we should look at the policy of whether or not 
this is a good idea, and it is not. It is called a pilot program, and 
the Democratic leader said it was a pilot program for which they wanted 
$100 million, and they agreed to $50 million over 2 years. As he 
described it, it is a central component of the understanding they 
reached.
  Mr. President, $50 million is a lot of money, but around this 
building, it does not even deserve an asterisk. So there is something 
more at work. We are not talking about $50 million if it is a central 
component of the agreement. We are talking about something people 
expect to expand radically over the years. This is a brandnew major 
entitlement which will expand dramatically. It is not some benign 
little pilot program. If it was, it would not be a central component of 
this agreement. Thus, this attempt to dismiss it is as something 
marginal clearly does not fly, even though it is alleged to be a pilot 
program.

  There was also a statement made that this is an attempt to benefit 
older workers. Actually, the language of this bill does the exact 
opposite. We have on the books the age discrimination language which 
says you cannot discriminate against somebody in their job who is over 
50 years old.
  We have on the books laws which say that older workers should be 
given deference and should be allowed to retain their jobs and should 
be allowed to improve their position in the workplace and should not be 
discriminated against because of their age.
  This amendment says exactly the opposite. It says to the older 
worker: When you lose your job due to trade, we are going to say you 
are not capable of getting a better job; we are going to tell you go 
find a lesser job, and then

[[Page S4442]]

we will pay you from the other taxpayers of America $5,000 to do that.
  It takes the theory of ``you cannot teach old dogs new tricks'' and 
says: Not only can you not teach old dogs new tricks, but we are going 
to pay you $5,000 to forget everything you have learned and take less 
of a job.
  It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the other laws which 
we have on the books relative to age discrimination. In fact, it flies 
in the face of years of attempts to make sure that as people get 
further into the workforce, they are not discriminated against.
  Of course, as has been outlined, it has no structure to it, no 
controls to it. Under the trade adjustment concept, the whole idea is 
to train people who lose their jobs as a result of trade activity, to 
train them to get a better job, to give them opportunities to get a 
better job. This language says you should get less of a job. It reduces 
your employment capability. There is no training language in this bill. 
In fact, you cannot train under this bill. It basically rejects the 
training language of the trade adjustment language.
  There is no requirement that you take a similar and suitable job. So 
if you have the ability to do something that is unique and you can take 
it across the street after you lose your job somewhere and get paid 
just as much or maybe even more, there is no requirement that you do 
that. If you would rather do something that maybe pays you a lot less 
because it is more socially acceptable to you, it is more in tune with 
your lifestyle--the example has been used of going and becoming an 
assistant pro at a golf course because you would rather play golf 
rather than work in a steel factory--you can do that; that is your 
right; you should be able to do that. Pursuit of happiness is part of 
our culture, but you should not get $5,000 from the taxpayers who are 
still working somewhere on the line to do it, which is what this bill 
tells you.
  If there is a similar and suitable job, you are not required to take 
it. You are not required to remain in the community, which means it 
undermines the community. I talked at length about that last night. You 
are not required to have a need for the job. Your spouse could be 
making $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000. If you had a job where you 
earned $50,000 and you take a lesser job, you still get $5,000 from the 
taxpayers of America, even though your spouse may have a huge income.
  There is no test relative to the manipulation of the system. An 
employer may be closing down one plant on trade adjustment language, 
opening up another facility in a different area, moving people into 
there, and getting a $5,000 payment. There is no language about that. 
There are no controls.
  There is no control in the area of meeting the needs relative to, as 
I said, staying in the community. And there is no arm's length control. 
You could work within the family, for example, move from one job to 
another. Maybe your son runs a construction company and you are working 
for a steel mill and the steel mill goes out of business; you go to 
work for your son's construction company and the taxpayers of America 
would have to pay you $5,000. Those are the technical issues that lie 
with this question.
  The bigger issues are these: No. 1, it is a brandnew entitlement with 
immense potential. No. 2, and most importantly, it undermines our basic 
philosophy of how we have had our economy structured the last 200 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Therefore, I hope people will join me in supporting this 
amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator 
Grassley of Iowa, I move to table the Gregg amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Helms
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the last vote today, May 16, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 282, H.R. 3167, the NATO expansion bill, 
and that it be considered under the following limitations: that there 
be 2\1/2\ hours for debate, with the time divided as follows: 60 
minutes under the control of the chairman, Senator Biden, and ranking 
member or their designees, 90 minutes under the control of Senator 
Warner or his designee; that no amendments or motions be in order--I 
understand there has been a change in plans. I withdraw that proposed 
request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the sequence of the 
amendments to H.R. 3009, the next three Democratic amendments be Nelson 
of Florida regarding dumping, Corzine regarding services, and Hollings 
regarding TAA expansion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I 
inquire of the Senator from Nevada, are these the three amendments that 
you would put following the list of amendments that were agreed to 
yesterday?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to try to understand also, the 
previous unanimous consent request of the Senator from Nevada, which he 
has withdrawn--is it the Senator's intent, with the subsequent 
unanimous consent request, that we move off the fast-track bill and on 
to NATO expansion? And if so, what would be the length of time we would 
be off the fast-track bill?
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from North 
Dakota, that we will do 2\1/2\ hours on this tonight and return to the 
fast-track bill tomorrow.
  Mr. DORGAN. With votes, Mr. President? I inquire, will there be votes 
tomorrow?
  Mr. REID. The majority leader announced yesterday there likely will 
be votes tomorrow. So I say to my friend from North Dakota, I know his 
concern is we have a long list of amendments and are we going to get to 
all the amendments.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, we are doing our very best to

[[Page S4443]]

work our way through these. And the majority leader has said publicly, 
and on a number of occasions, he wants to allow people to have the 
ability to amend this. I have not heard the leader say at any time that 
he is contemplating, in the near future, a motion for cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might continue to reserve my right to 
object, yesterday, we created a sequencing of amendments. I was not 
consulted in that. I was on the floor expecting to be recognized 
following the Gregg amendment. And then the Senator brought to the 
floor a sequencing of amendments that has me somewhere following some 
very big, lengthy amendments that are going to take a lot of floor 
time.
  I was surprised by that and not consulted about it. So if we are 
going to sequence amendments--I regretted it all the way to work this 
morning that I did not object yesterday. I think the way for us to do 
this, of course, is to consult with each other. Since I was on the 
floor expecting to be able to offer an amendment, and talked to the 
appropriate staff about doing so, I was very surprised about the 
sequencing that came yesterday. But I don't believe it is the fault of 
the Senator from Nevada. It is not my intention to suggest that. But if 
we are sequencing things, let's consult with everyone first.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from North Dakota, he is 
not alone. There are a number of other people who have come to me today 
asking why they are not higher than the rest. But I do say, we have a 
lot of amendments, and certainly there was no intent to, in any way, 
discourage or prevent the Senator from North Dakota having his 
amendment heard. In fact, it is my understanding that the Senator from 
North Dakota has other amendments that he wishes to offer. I apologize 
to him, and others, that perhaps we could have done more consulting 
with others, but we didn't, and we are now in this posture. We will try 
to do better in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not about being higher on the 
list. It is about, if there is going to be stage management here, then 
there should be consultation on how we are going to manage the stage. I 
was expecting to be, and was told I would likely be, recognized 
following the Gregg amendment.
  Look, I am where I am at this point because of the unanimous consent 
request that I should have objected to yesterday and did not. I only 
point out, as we proceed, it would be helpful to consult with the rest 
of us. If not, I will be constrained to object on future unanimous 
requests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Connecticut is recognized to offer an amendment.


                Amendment No. 3428 To Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 3428 to 
     amendment No. 3401.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 of the United 
           States with respect to labor and the environment)

       Section 2102(b)(11) is amended by striking subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) to ensure that the parties to a trade agreement 
     reaffirm their obligations as members of the ILO and their 
     commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental 
     Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, and strive 
     to ensure that such labor principles and the core labor 
     standards set forth in section 2113(2) are recognized and 
     protected by domestic law;
       ``(D) recognizing the rights of parties to establish their 
     own labor standards, and to adopt or modify accordingly their 
     labor laws and regulations, parties shall strive to ensure 
     that their laws provide for labor standards consistent with 
     the core labor standards and shall strive to improve those 
     standards in that light;
       ``(E) to recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage 
     trade by relaxing domestic labor laws and to strive to ensure 
     that parties to a trade agreement do not waive or otherwise 
     derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, 
     their labor laws as an encouragement for trade;
       ``(F) to strengthen the capacity of United States trading 
     partners to promote respect for core labor standards and 
     reaffirm their obligations and commitments under the ILO 
     Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and 
     its Follow-up;''.

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman.
  Before I get into the details of the amendment and why I think it is 
an important amendment, let me state what I think many of my colleagues 
may have been aware of over the years.
  I have been a longtime advocate of promoting free and fair trade 
throughout my tenure in this body of more than two decades. I have 
historically supported the granting of fast-track authority. I voted 
for trade agreements that have resulted from that authority. So the 
Member who offers this amendment is one who has a strong record over 
the years of advocating and supporting expanding trading opportunities.
  I come from a State that has been tremendously dependent over the 
years on export markets for the health and well-being of the people who 
live there.
  I say that as a background so you understand what my thinking is 
about this amendment, and why I think this amendment is so important to 
people such as myself who have been supporters of trade agreement. The 
adoption or the defeat of this amendment could have a profound effect, 
I say to my colleagues, on someone such as myself, who likes to believe 
that we have progressed, over the years, in trade agreements, expanding 
and fighting for the rights that we demand not only for our own 
citizenry but in trying to expand around the globe to benefit and 
improve the quality of life for people elsewhere with whom we have 
trading agreements.
  What I have observed over time is that the evolution and the content 
and scope of these agreements, their depth and their breadth have grown 
dramatically since I first arrived in this body more than 20 years ago. 
No longer are we simply dealing with tariffs and duties and quotas to 
be levied on tangible goods. That was the case when I arrived. But 
because good people in this body, of both parties, over the years have 
fought to expand what would be a part of these agreements, we have 
improved dramatically these trading accords.
  We now deal with virtually every facet of our economy. The process 
has evolved. And matters once totally outside the realm of trade 
agreements no longer are. And that is good news for America.
  I am thinking, for example, of the NAFTA agreement, which I supported 
and which passed the Congress only after the Clinton administration 
negotiated side agreements related to labor and the environment. Those 
side agreements were controversial to some in this body, but they were 
so essential to the passage of NAFTA.
  Throughout my 20 years in the Senate I have been a strong supporter 
of trading agreements and fast track.
  I am very proud of my record of support for these agreements. It has 
been a critical issue for my State and the country. You are not 
listening to a Member who historically has objected every time a trade 
agreement or fast-track authority has come up. Quite the contrary, I 
have been one who has stood in support of these agreements because I 
believed they were in our country's best interest.
  Over time there has been an evolution in the content and scope of 
these trading agreements--that has been wonderful news for the United 
States--as their depth and breadth have grown dramatically. It used to 
be we just negotiated agreements that dealt with tariffs, duties, and 
quotas on tradeable goods. That was it. You didn't consider anything 
else.
  Those days are long since past. We now deal with virtually every 
facet of

[[Page S4444]]

our economy in the context of trade negotiations. The process has 
evolved, and matters once considered totally outside the realm of a 
trade agreement no longer are. I am thinking of NAFTA, which I strongly 
supported, which was an important agreement that passed the Congress 
only after the Clinton administration negotiated side agreements 
relating to labor and the environment. Those side agreements were 
controversial to some in this body, but had they not been included, we 
would never have passed NAFTA.
  That is a fact.
  What I am saying about the amendment I am proposing--I will get to 
the details in a minute--for people such as myself, the adoption of 
this kind of an amendment is critically important to our votes when it 
comes to final passage. Maybe they are not necessary, but I would hate 
to think as we begin the 21st century that we would take a step back 
from exactly the progress we have made in the latter part of the 20th 
century when it comes to trading agreements. That is all I am 
suggesting we do here: To maintain this progress as we go forward.
  More recently, both the House and the Senate unanimously endorsed the 
United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The Bush administration in 
fact urged Congress to do so. The Jordan agreement broke new ground and 
set a standard, a floor by which other agreements will be judged as 
they relate to the support and protection of core internationally 
recognized labor standards.
  The United States-Jordan Agreement also contains a mechanism to 
resolve disputes related to violations of the terms of the agreement, 
including violations of labor rights equal to violations that in the 
context of commerce and other economic transactions between our two 
nations. The Jordan agreement was very forward looking, dynamic, and 
supported by 100 percent of the Members of the Senate. As part of that 
agreement, the United States and Jordan pledged not only to uphold 
existing domestic labor laws in conjunction with the trade agreement, 
but we also recognized that ``cooperation between them provides 
enhanced opportunities to improve labor standards'' in the future.
  Last week, King Abdallah of Jordan was in Washington. Many of my 
colleagues had an opportunity to see him. The Middle East crisis was 
foremost on his mind for obvious reasons. He also took the time to 
mention that the implementation of the United States-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement was working very well. For those who may say this places 
onerous burdens on developing countries, Third and Fourth World 
countries, and this is too difficult a task, King Abdallah of Jordan 
made the point that the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was 
working extremely well.

  No one expects every country with which we will be entering into 
negotiations to have the same standards and protections the United 
States has with respect to protection of workers' rights, just as they 
don't have as well developed patent and copyright laws or environmental 
standards. We know that. But we do believe that if every country had 
identical standards and practices, negotiations would be unnecessary.
  The purpose of engaging in negotiations and reaching comprehensive 
trade agreements is to encourage other nations to stretch themselves to 
do more in these areas. Trade agreements should be viewed as a dynamic 
process for ratcheting up global standards across the board.
  The Jordan standards, unanimously adopted by Members of this body, 
are a mechanism for making that happen in the labor sector.
  One of the reasons I am offering the Jordan standards as a part of 
this bill is that they passed 100 to nothing here. There was no debate 
about whether or not these standards ought to be included in that 
agreement. My concern is, if we don't raise the level on this trade 
authority, we will be taking a step back.
  My amendment merely takes three provisions of this agreement and 
incorporates them in the underlying bill. I commend the committee 
because they took three of the provisions of the Jordan free trade 
agreement included them in the legislation. But in the absence of these 
three I will discuss shortly, this is a flawed proposal.
  For those reasons, my amendment ought to be adopted. We don't expect 
everyone to have the exact standards we do. But we think these rights 
are not just unique to this country. We think the people's right to 
collectively bargain, the people's right to be protected against child 
labor are good standards. These are standards we want the rest of the 
world to try to reach.
  We don't want the world to hire children to produce products that are 
sold in America. We want the environment to improve not just in our own 
country but around the globe as well. By including the standards in the 
Jordan agreement in this agreement, we advance the very cause of those 
ideals which we have championed as a people, regardless of party. In 
many ways it has been the bipartisan insistence on these inclusions 
that has made them so important and so dynamic for the rest of the 
world.
  Is there any doubt that it is in the economic and foreign policy 
interests of the United States to encourage respect for workers' 
rights, abolish child labor, or to protect the environment? Those ought 
not belong to a party, they belong to a Nation. Is there any doubt that 
governments that treat their workers with respect, that allow them to 
freely associate, that have adopted laws against child labor, that have 
established minimum wage standards, are governments that tend to be 
strong and stable democracies, or that governments that don't value and 
protect their citizens are generally tyrants who are not only a threat 
to their own citizens but to their neighbors as well?
  President John Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. 
The growth in international commerce can certainly be that rising tide. 
But it will only lift all boats if we ensure that increased trade goes 
hand in hand with respect for internationally recognized labor rights 
and have a shared commitment to making the lives of working people 
better. That is why I believe it is so critical that we send a clear 
signal that we truly are seeking to get our trading partners to adopt 
standards that our friends in Jordan readily agreed to and find are 
working extremely well.

  What an irony it would be that we demand it of Jordan, a country with 
all of its difficulties, with a remarkable leader in King Abdallah who 
finds he can live with it, and we turn around, after a unanimous vote 
in the year 2001, passing the United States-Jordan agreement, and adopt 
a trade accord here that would allow us to take a walk away from the 
very standards that only months ago we applied to the nation of Jordan.
  The Jordan Agreement is living well with the agreements and standards 
we applied there. To now take a hike on the standards we agreed to 
under Jordan, and to say to everyone else that they get to adopt a 
lower standard would be a tragedy. This agreement ought not to be 
adopted if we exclude these provisions that we have already adopted 100 
to nothing in the Senate only a few short months ago.
  Let me explain what the amendment does. It is not complicated. It is 
very straightforward. My colleagues will understand this is not an 
exaggerated, new idea. I am merely taking the language that already 
exists, that was adopted unanimously in the year 2001.
  The amendment, for those who want to follow the details of this, 
would modify section 2102(b)(11) of the underlying managers' amendment 
as it relates to the principle trade negotiations with respect to labor 
by adding language drawn from the United States-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement. The language proposed in my amendment is an addition to the 
language included in the managers' package.
  I commend the managers. They did include language, very specifically, 
from the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement in this bill. That 
is very helpful.
  But we are missing some language here. Let there be no doubt. When 
you are dealing with traders around the world, they will make clear 
note that the absence of language was not a mistake, not some 
oversight; the intentions are quite clear that all of a sudden we are 
changing the rules of the road. I don't think we want to send that 
message.
  So I know there will be arguments that the United States-Jordan Free

[[Page S4445]]

Trade Agreement is included entirely in this bill. It is not at all. I 
commend the managers for what they have done. The managers were 
working, of course, from the House version of this bill. That placed 
certain constraints on them in committee. I hope that the full Senate 
will act on this matter now, so we can be more flexible and fully 
reflect the important precedent set by the United States-Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement in the areas of labor and the environment.
  I have prepared a chart that replicates article 6 of the United 
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. It relates to the obligations of 
the United States and Jordan with respect to labor. Let's look to the 
provisions of that agreement and compare it with the text of the bill 
and the additions my amendment would make to that text.
  Article 6.1 of the U.S. Jordan Agreement, is reflected in section (C) 
of the pending amendment. This amendment would establish as a principal 
negotiating labor objective, the reaffirmation by parties of their 
obligations and commitments as members of the ILO--International Labor 
Organization--in the context of labor negotiations and in the context 
of future trade agreements and a commitment to ensure that domestic 
labor laws are consistent with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental 
Principles and Rights at Work.
  What does that mean? It is a lot of language. It means, in the 
context of the negotiating process, that governments that are members 
of the ILO, of which there are 163--virtually everybody we are trading 
with--must be mindful of the obligations that have already been assumed 
as members of that organization. That is a radical thought, isn't it? 
It was signed on to by 163 countries.
  We are saying, if you want to trade with us, we want you to live up 
to the commitment you made when you signed on. That is what we said to 
Jordan. We said: Look, you are a member of the ILO and we are going to 
say if you want to have a trading relationship with us--and we want it 
with you--we want to have clear language in the agreement that says you 
must live up to those obligations that you already signed on to. That 
is not exactly a radical point in this context. What are those 
obligations? To respect, promote, and realize fundamental labor rights, 
such as freedom of association, elimination of forced labor, abolition 
of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination with respect to 
employment.
  I hope I will not have to debate in this Chamber, as we begin the 
21st century, whether or not it is in the interest of the United 
States, when we enter trading agreements, that somehow we are going to 
sit back and remain silent when it comes to discrimination, child 
labor, and the right to promote respect or fundamental rights and the 
elimination of forced labor.
  I don't think that is terribly radical for the U.S. in this century 
to be talking about having or advancing those standards in future 
trading agreements. So if you are going to defeat this amendment, 
understand we are going to step back to what we agreed to 100 to 0 a 
few months ago and to say to every trading partner we have, you can 
disregard this--disregard forced labor, child labor, and the notions of 
free association and the elimination or discrimination with respect to 
employment. I don't know of a single Member of this body, Republican or 
Democrat, who wants to be associated with a trading agreement that 
retreats from those very principles we have adopted in this body 
already. We are not asking these countries to do anything more than 
they are obligated to do as members of the ILO. That is all. This 
provision is not currently included in the managers' principal 
negotiating objectives, and I think it should be.

  Let's look at the next provision. Article 6.2, embodied in section 
(E) of my amendment, namely, that the parties recognize it is 
inappropriate to seek a competitive trade advantage by relaxing or 
waiving domestic labor laws. I hesitate to even explain this one. We 
are saying we don't want you to step back in your own domestic laws in 
order to create a more favorable trade environment. That would be so 
damaging to our own country. We are saying, if you want to have an 
agreement with us, if you want to sell your products in America, you 
cannot start retreating on your own laws and putting American workers 
and American companies at a disadvantage.
  We included this provision in the United States-Jordan agreement. We 
said we want a guarantee that you are not going to slip back and undo 
the laws you already adopted. You don't have to trade with us, but if 
you want to, we insist that you live up to the laws you have already 
written. That is not a radical thought.
  Certainly, it seems to me that by excluding specifically that 
language from this agreement, having specifically ratified the trading 
agreement only a few short months ago, that we would be sending a 
signal with which I don't think many people in this Chamber would want 
to be associated. So it is extremely important.
  What is the harm in including this provision? Do we support other 
countries gaining a competitive advantage over U.S. industries, 
businesses, and manufacturers by ignoring their own laws? I don't think 
so. And I certainly hope not.
  Article 6.3 of the Jordan agreement is embodied in section (D) of my 
amendment; namely, to recognize the rights of parties to establish 
their own labor standards, but also the commitment to strive to ensure 
that their laws are consistent with the core labor standards, and that 
we should be trying to, over time, improve working conditions. Again, 
this doesn't seem terribly radical to me.
  Articles 6.4 and 6.5 of the Jordan agreement are already contained in 
the underlying bill, as is 6.6, the definition of labor laws. Again, I 
commend Senators Baucus and Grassley, and other members of the 
committee, for already taking the United States-Jordan Free Trade 
Agreement and including the provisions I have just mentioned.
  So we have already set the precedent of taking the exact language of 
the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and explicitly included 
some of the language in this bill. The obvious omission of the articles 
I have just mentioned, involving the points I have raised, I think, 
would be glaring in terms of our retreat from those principles we think 
are extremely important.
  My comparison of the agreement with the underlying bill and with the 
provisions of my amendment show that this bill does not incorporate all 
of provisions in the United States-Jordan agreement. I believe that 
only with the adoption of this amendment Senator Lieberman and I have 
offered can we fairly assert that there is parity between this bill and 
the United States-Jordan accord. Let's assume for the moment that you 
agree with the managers of the bill, that they have already 
accomplished Jordan parity. I might ask, what is the harm of accepting 
this amendment, which I clearly have shown is no more or less than what 
is in the United States-Jordan agreement? It seems to me by taking this 
additional language, we have done nothing to damage the statements made 
by the authors of this bill. I fail to see what great damage could be 
done to this bill or to the President's negotiating authority with the 
addition of a few additional negotiating objectives. There are 
currently 27 pages of principal negotiating objectives in the pending 
managers amendment, covering 14 areas, such as trade barriers, 
services, investment, intellectual property, e-commerce, agriculture, 
labor, environment, and dispute settlement.

  I don't think we believe that U.S. negotiators will be successful in 
delivering on every single one of these objectives. But the point of 
including them is to encourage U.S. negotiators to pay attention to the 
issues of discrimination in employment, forced labor, and child labor. 
We think those are worthwhile objectives that should be payed attention 
to. If you can pay attention to e-commerce, to investments, to 
intellectual property, tell me what your rationale is for taking a hike 
and walking away when job discrimination, child labor, and forced labor 
ought to be on the table as well as part of our standards.
  If it is OK to watch out for the banks, for the high-tech companies, 
how about watching out for people who have no one else to watch out for 
them and to insist that if you want to trade with America, sell your 
goods in Nevada, or in Connecticut, or in Texas, or anywhere else, at 
least you have to put these standards on the table.

[[Page S4446]]

  So we urge adoption of an amendment to incorporate these standards, 
to encourage our negotiators to pay attention to these objectives that 
have been delineated, and send a signal to our trading partners that we 
care about them--at least the Senate does. Republicans and Democrats 
care about these issues. We care about trade, but we also care about 
working people. We care about them at home and around the globe. If you 
are going to have the luxury of selling your products and services 
here, for the Lord's sake, please pay attention to some things that go 
to human decency.
  That is all we are talking about. That is why we truly believe our 
negotiators should be attempting to achieve standards that already 
apply. I suspect if I were offering this language for the first time, 
people would say I am breaking new ground. I am not breaking new 
ground.
  In the year 2001, this Senate unanimously voted for the agreement. 
This body, at the urging of President Bush, adopted the United States-
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, and the very standards written here are 
written into that law. Should we say to other countries we insist 
Jordan do something, but the rest of you can just ignore these 
important standards?
  As I said earlier, our partners in negotiation are not foolish; they 
are not naive; they are not stupid. They are going to know there is a 
difference between this bill and the Jordan agreement. They are going 
to assume rightly--or, more importantly, wrongly--that there is a 
message sent by that difference. If we do not want to send such a 
signal--and I do not believe the managers of this bill do--then I think 
we should be careful with the language we incorporate here.
  I believe, without the adoption of this amendment, the Jordan 
standards will not be fully on the table for discussion, and we will 
have missed a unique opportunity to insist they be a part of all future 
agreements.
  Madam President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. It is not 
complicated. It is very straightforward. It is not precedent setting, 
and I think it is where America is. These are American values. If we 
can add standards in every other imaginable area to protect every 
financial interest one can think of, should we not also try to do 
something about kids who get hired to produce some of the very clothes 
people are wearing every day; shouldn't we see to it that job 
discrimination and forced labor are not going to produce the products 
we sell on the shelves of our small communities and large cities of 
this country? I do not think that these ideas are radical. They are 
about as American as it can get. I hope my colleagues will think 
likewise and support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, for the benefit of Senators, we likely 
will not have a vote on the Dodd amendment until about 4 o'clock today. 
The President, if not on the Hill, will be here shortly. A number of 
people are going to be meeting with him.
  Of course, at 2 o'clock we are going to be in recess for the awards 
ceremony for President Reagan and Nancy Reagan, and we will not be able 
to vote until 4 o'clock.
  I hope that when debate is completed, within whatever period of time 
it might take, we can have a vote at 4 o'clock, and if Senator Kyl, who 
I understand is going to offer the next amendment for the Republicans, 
can debate his amendment for whatever time is left until 2 o'clock, and 
then from 3 to 4, and we can have two votes at 4 o'clock. That is what 
we would like to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the 
Dodd-Lieberman amendment. The amendment is very similar to the 
Lieberman amendment yesterday in terms of its impact, though the 
approach is very different, so I will not belabor it. But I do want to 
make several points that I think are relevant to the amendment.
  The first point is in response to Senator Dodd's argument that the 
language he wants to impose on all future trade negotiations is 
identical to the language included in the Jordan free trade agreement 
approved unanimously by the Senate.
  That argument assumes that one size fits all. It is similar to the 
argument I might make if I were going to try to buy a tire 
manufacturing company after buying a set of its tires. I might argue: 
You were willing to sell me a set of tires on credit without 
collateral. Now that I want to buy your whole company, how come you 
want collateral?
  What worked for Jordan does not necessarily work elsewhere. I want to 
remind my colleagues that we rushed to approve the free trade agreement 
with Jordan because it was an important foreign policy action regarding 
a friend in one of the most unstable and difficult parts of the world 
in a time of emergency. It was in effect a foreign policy decision, not 
a trade policy decision. Indeed, our imports from Jordan are twenty-
five one-thousandths of 1 percent of all imports coming into the United 
States. Trade, while not unimportant, clearly did not drive this 
agreement.
  Yet Senator Dodd's point is that if this language was good enough for 
Jordan, why is it not good enough as a general principle for all 
trading partners? That question kind of answers itself. If a signature 
on a note to buy a set of tires at a car dealership is good enough, why 
isn't the signature good enough to buy a car, or the car company? 
Because the situations are different.

  The point is that a trade agreement with, say, Europe would be very 
different than a trade agreement with Jordan. In terms of trade, a 
trade agreement with Europe would be shooting with real bullets in 
terms of trade, jobs, and economic growth, because we already have a 
well-established economic flow between the United States and Europe. 
Such a trade agreement would not simply be about foreign policy. In 
contrast, we are just starting to increase our economic flow between 
the United States and Jordan, and the agreement quite clearly had a 
critical foreign policy component. Of course trade with Jordan is not 
solely about foreign policy. But to say that the principles we set 
forth in the Jordan agreement ought to be the principles that dictate 
every agreement we enter into in the future simply is not a valid 
analogy.
  My second point is that the document before us is the result of long 
hours of labor by the Finance Committee. Now, I am not saying that the 
Finance Committee has cornered the market on wisdom or is infallible, 
but I will say that the Committee held numerous hearings and had days 
of debate. Eventually, we worked out a bipartisan compromise on these 
issues, and the bill was reported 18 to 3. The trade promotion bill 
approved by Finance is the bill that is supported by the administration 
and is broadly supported by every major element of the American 
economy.
  In that bill, we achieved a balance that preserves the flexibility of 
the administration to negotiate different trade agreements depending on 
the particular circumstances. To suggest that somehow we do not deal 
with child labor is simply not valid. Labor issues are a factor through 
this bill. For the first time, we have an extensive negotiating 
objective in a fast-track bill dealing with labor and environmental 
issues. In addition, we have included language that refers to ILO 
conventions both those we have ratified and those we have not--on 
forced labor, minimum employment age, and similar matters. However, the 
bill as reported provides flexibility, rather than assuming that one 
size fits all.
  I do not think there is one size that fits all in almost anything 
that government does, which is why so many of our programs fail. But 
even if there were one size that fits all, to suggest that the Jordan 
Free Trade Agreement, an agreement with a country that produces twenty-
five one-thousandths of 1 percent of the products that we import, 
should serve as the mandate for all future agreements simply does not 
stand up to scrutiny.
  In the Finance Committee bill, we have dealt with labor. We have 
dealt with the environment. And in both areas we have set standards 
higher than we have ever set before. To suggest that we ought to go 
back to one particular trade agreement approved in the midst of a 
crisis in the Middle East with a country that sells twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 percent of all

[[Page S4447]]

items we buy from the rest of the world, and make it the ironclad 
standard for every trade negotiation we enter into again from now on, 
seems to me to be putting us in the kind of straitjacket that we would 
not want to put any administration in. That is why the Dodd-Lieberman 
amendment is opposed by a broad cross-section of American business. It 
is opposed by the administration. It is opposed by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Finance Committee.
  It is one thing to try to add to the bill a totally new matter that 
we have not dealt with before. But it is another thing altogether to 
come in now, on the floor of the Senate, and try to rewrite heart of 
the bill based on one agreement entered into largely for foreign policy 
reasons with a key country who happens to sell us just twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 percent of all imports that we buy. Given the current 
trade flows between the United States and Jordan, any error in the 
agreement probably would not cause profound economic damage to either 
country. Our trade flows are just not large enough. Our overall 
relationship was and is important enough to approve that agreement. It 
was a good thing to do, and I supported it. But that agreement cannot 
become the ironclad standard for every trade agreement from this point 
on.
  A few points to sum up. This amendment is unnecessary and undoes the 
bipartisan compromise on labor issues. It is not as if we do not deal 
with labor issues in the bill before us. In fact, we dealt with them in 
great detail. They were negotiated extensively, and as a result we now 
have strong bipartisan support for the bill. To come in now and rewrite 
the labor section based on one trade agreement we approved during a 
foreign policy crisis with a country whose sales to the United States 
are minimal relative to total world sales is just not sound public 
policy.
  Secondly, the amendment proposes a one-size-fits-all approach that 
takes the smallest size as the base. The fact is that right now, there 
are few countries in the world from whom we buy as few goods as we do 
from Jordan. More imports are bought by some cities in Texas in a month 
than are bought by the whole Nation from Jordan in a year. We all hope 
that the agreement will promote greater trade with Jordan. But the fact 
is that its sales to us will remain relatively small compared to the 
sales by the rest of the world. To use the Jordan Agreement as the 
standard and override the bipartisan compromise in a bill written to be 
as coherent and flexible as possible does not make any sense.
  We are not in the welfare business when it comes to trade. It is one 
thing for a trade agreement to help a government in Jordan. But when we 
are negotiating trade agreements with the Europeans, or the Japanese, I 
want the agreements to help us. I want them to benefit from a trade 
agreement too, but my first concern is to make sure that we benefit. In 
this case, the negotiation with Jordan was for Jordan. But any 
negotiation with Europe or Japan should be for America. To apply a 
foreign policy-driven standard to such negotiations just would not be 
sound policy.

  It boils down to one point: different negotiations require different 
approaches. Any negotiations with China, for example, would be very 
different from our negotiation with Jordan, just as buying a set of 
tires on credit is a little bit different than buying the tire company. 
When you're buying the tire company, you should expect standards that 
are vastly different in terms of obtaining credit.
  I hope we will defeat the Dodd-Lieberman amendment. It basically 
tries to change the very heart of the bipartisan trade promotion 
authority bill through an amendment offered on the floor. This is the 
second time we are seeing such an effort. Yesterday, we had an effort 
by Senator Lieberman to undo the bill. Today, we have a second effort 
by Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman to undo the bill. I hope the same 
people who voted against the effort to undo it yesterday will vote 
against undoing it today.
  I am proud of the Jordanian agreement, and I gave it my support. But 
it should not be the be-all, end-all standard for all future trade 
agreements. I do not think anybody thinks that it should. It may very 
well be that some colleagues with a certain bent on some issues like 
the language of the amendment better than the language of the bill. But 
the language of the bill is something that has been very carefully 
negotiated. So I would urge those who want a trade bill to vote against 
this amendment.
  Let me conclude by stressing one point of concern. One of the things 
that has disturbed me for most of this year, and that has become very 
clear on this trade bill, is that increasingly people are not taking a 
proprietary position on issues that are of vital national importance. 
Certainly I am not trying to judge anybody else's motives, but it seems 
to me that we are seeing votes cast on this trade bill where, from the 
outside, it looks as if nobody is taking ownership of this critically 
important bill.
  In the 24 years I have served in the Congress, I do not think I have 
ever witnessed a Finance Committee that could not defend its own 
legislation on the floor. We are seeing efforts to make wholesale 
changes that would undo the entire agreement. We have what is close to 
piracy where people are trying to load one more item on this wagon, and 
the wagon is now rickety and on the verge of running into the ditch.
  Anybody paying attention to this debate knows that trade promotion 
authority at this point is almost dead. Now we have an effort to 
rewrite the heart of the bill's bipartisan language on labor, and 
impose a standard that we negotiated with a country whose trade with 
the United States is a fraction of the trade we have with the world. 
Under such circumstances, I will not be willing to pay the already 
great tributes of health insurance for unemployed that is paid by 
workers who do not have health insurance, and wage guarantees that are 
higher for the beneficiaries than the average wage of working people in 
the country.
  If we truly want this bill to become law, then we are going to have 
to begin to take some ownership of the bill. We can start by defeating 
this amendment. Well intended though it may be, it is harmful because 
it makes the assumption that one size fits all, using a standard 
applied in an agreement driven by foreign policy to a nation whose 
sales by any measure are minor in the context of overall United States 
trade.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that once the debate concludes on 
the Dodd amendment--we are attempting to have a time set for this vote 
on the Dodd amendment. As I indicated earlier, we will be out of 
session from 2 to 3 because of the President Reagan and Nancy Reagan 
award, and other things will take place at 3 p.m. We will vote at 4 
p.m.
  Mr. GRAMM. On this matter or any motion related to it?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. While we are waiting, my good friend from Texas and I have 
worked on a lot of things together. We disagree on this particular 
point.
  For clarity purposes, we are talking about 27 pages of standards that 
are part of this trade promotion authority. We are talking about the 
addition of three principle negotiating objectives. It is not one-size-
fits-all any more than it is one-size-fits-all on the other 27 pages of 
standards. We are taking, what is already partly in the bill, to the 
credit of the manager of this bill, several provisions in the United 
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. My colleague said this was a 
foreign policy document, not a trading agreement. If that were the 
case, why did we add provisions that expanded the concerns about child 
labor and discrimination in the workplace, forced labor, the rights of 
free association? If we merely wanted to do a foreign policy document, 
we would have had a barebones agreement with Jordan, if it was just to 
send a message that we wanted to be of some help. But, no, we 
incorporated collective wisdom and included the dynamic principles we 
care about into the Jordan Agreement.
  This is about America. It is not fair to Americans who lose their 
jobs because of a trading agreement, where some other country can hire 
children, discriminate in the workplace or disregard the rights they 
signed on to in the International Labor Organizations. That gives them 
a tremendous advantage at the expense of America.

[[Page S4448]]

  Jordan may be small; these principles are not small. They may 
represent twenty-five one-thousandths of 1 percent, but forced labor, 
child labor, discrimination in the workplace, and the right of 
association are not twenty-five one-thousandths of 1 percent of what 
Americans care about. We care about these principles. And we fight for 
them. We eliminated them in our own country years ago. We struggle 
every day to make them work, even in the 21st century. We are saying if 
you want the right to sell your goods in America, these are principles 
and objectives we think you ought to try to achieve. They are 
objectives.
  The idea that we would exclude these objectives--I just don't 
understand the rationale of that. With 27 pages of objectives in this 
bill, that include objectives on e-commerce, investment, and many other 
standards--how about including some standards that apply to working 
people? How about that? Is that so radical a thought?
  We have already adopted by 100 to zero a United States-Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement establishing principles, adding 3 more principles, to a 
27-page set of negotiating objectives. Not every country is America. We 
are not foolish. We do not say you must absolutely meet the standard of 
the United States when it comes to job discrimination, child labor, 
forced labor. It would be ludicrous if I were to write and say you must 
absolutely achieve the same standards we have. That is unrealistic. We 
have not done that.
  If I cannot write this into a trade promotion authority, where do I 
write it? Do I have to do it agreement by agreement by agreement? Why 
not just make this part of the principles of our negotiators? These are 
not radical ideas. All that I am saying is that as part of the 
principal negotiating objectives, including the provisions you already 
added from the free trade agreement with Jordan, these three Jordan 
standards ought to be included. It is not too much to ask.

  I appreciate my colleague from Texas and his colleagues on the 
Finance Committee spending time getting their ideas incorporated into 
the bill. I am chairman of the Rules Committee, and a bill recently 
came out of the Committee. I had 100-some-odd amendments; 43 were dealt 
with on the floor. I was not offended. I prefer that everyone did 
everything I wanted them to do. I don't know a Senator who doesn't feel 
that way. The reason we have 100 Members representing 50 States is, 
people have a right to raise concerns and offer amendments. We are 
doing that.
  I commend the committee for what they have done. The Finance 
Committee, under the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, 
have done a terrific job. It is not easy. They have incorporated parts 
of the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. But they left out 
three that I think are important. I am merely suggesting, and I regret 
this requires a recorded vote. These are objectives, that is all. My 
Colleague from Texas mentioned Europe. We are worried about trading 
with Europe? Is this such a difficult job in Europe, with forced labor, 
child labor, and employment discrimination? I don't think so. The 
problems arise with smaller countries that are still emerging where the 
problems exist.
  If, by requiring our negotiators to raise these principles, we might 
improve the quality of life of people in these developing countries, is 
that such an outrageous suggestion? Is that something that America 
should retreat from as a nation that takes pride in the fact we try to 
recognize the rights of all people? When our Founding Fathers wrote the 
cornerstone documents of this country, they didn't talk about these 
rights, those inalienable rights, only occurring if you manage to make 
it to America. Those inalienable rights are rights that are endowed by 
the Creator to all people. In the 21st century, to try to slow down the 
abolition of child labor, forced labor, job discrimination, and to 
suggest we ought to keep it out of this bill, this trade promotion 
authority, I don't think reflects who we are as a people. It is a step 
back from where we are as a people.
  This is not one size fits all. We know fully well as we enter trading 
agreements, there will be nations that will do a better job or not as 
good a job in the areas I have mentioned. I don't think it is so 
radical to ask our negotiators to have these, along with the other 27 
pages of standards. Every business interest in America is guaranteeing 
their interests are going to be negotiated when it comes to reaching 
agreements. What about working people? Why can't they be on these 27 
pages, as they have in many places? I don't think it is a lot to ask by 
adding these three.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort. The role of the full 
Senate is not to be a rubber stamp. What I am offering I think is more 
of an oversight. The managers were dealing with a House version of the 
bill, and they added the three provisions of the Jordan agreement, and 
they left these three out. I think it is the intent of the managers to 
include the principal negotiating standards of the Jordan agreement. 
And really denouncing this because the country we negotiated with was 
small--these principles are not small; the fact we negotiated with a 
small country does not mean the principles are not large in the minds 
of the American people. We ought to make them principles, regardless of 
the size of the country with which we negotiate. It is a great tribute 
to the nation of Jordan, a small struggling country, one of the most 
crisis-ridden areas in the world, that they could live with these 
standards as part of the negotiation we entered with them. If a small, 
struggling country can accept this, representing one tiny percentage of 
our trading partners, then certainly larger countries should do no 
less.
  Therefore, the very argument of my colleague from Texas when he says 
this is like arguing about the price of a tire when you try to buy GM--
child labor, forced labor, job discrimination are not tires. Those are 
not just small consumer items in the list of human principles and 
values. We think they are important principles and they ought to be 
given a status--more than a sale of a tire on a car.

  I urge my colleagues to join us in this and support this language and 
put it in the bill. It makes it a stronger bill, a better bill, a bill 
we can be proud of when we negotiate trading agreements in the future 
with other countries.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I listened very carefully to my good 
friend from Connecticut. I imagine people, while they are listening to 
him, are wondering what is this debate all about, really? Certainly 
none of us want to promote child labor. All of us want to discourage 
child labor. All of us, as Americans, with the values we have as 
Americans, want to promote our American values.
  The question is, what is in this bill, what is not, what are we 
debating, and what are we not debating? Essentially, as I listen to my 
good friend, the Senator is arguing for the bill. What the Senator 
suggests is virtually what is in the bill. There is really not any 
difference. When I listen to the Senator, he makes it sound as if there 
is a huge difference, but there really is not.
  First of all, we do incorporate the Jordan provisions in the 
underlying trade promotion authority fast-track bill that are labor and 
environmental standards. Let's remember, the Jordan agreement is an 
actual trade agreement; whereas today we are debating whether to give 
the President authority--along with passing the trade adjustment 
assistance and Andean Trade Adjustment Act--whether to give the 
President the authority to negotiate future trade agreements under a 
certain procedure.
  There is a difference between a current, existing agreement that was 
negotiated--that is Jordan, on the one hand--and future agreements 
which have not been negotiated on the other.
  The Senator from Connecticut is essentially saying the standards, 
exact language as in the Jordan standard, essentially should be the 
language that applies to environmental and labor provisions and dispute 
settlement provisions in all future trade agreements. Again, I think it 
is important to note that there is a difference between what is 
actually negotiated in an agreement and future trade agreements. That 
difference is very important.

  No two trade disputes are exactly alike. No countries are exactly 
alike. The matters over which they negotiate are different. Each 
negotiation involves different issues, different complexities, and 
these require us to be

[[Page S4449]]

creative, to adapt, and not take--the common phrase is the cookie-
cutter approach.
  I also want to react to the argument of my friend from Connecticut 
who implied that ILO negotiating objectives are not in the bill or 
negotiating to reduce child labor is not in the bill. That is not 
accurate. It is in the bill.
  There are three categories of objectives. This sounds a bit arcane. 
One is principal objectives, overall objectives, and then other 
objectives. But the language in the bill makes it clear that each of 
the objectives has the same priority.
  You may ask why they are not all in the same category. I am not sure 
I can answer that question, but the operating principle is that the 
language in the bill provides that each of these objectives, although 
they might be in different categories--one of them includes ILO labor--
is a core labor standard. It also includes--promote respect for 
workers' rights, the rights of children consistent with core labor 
standards of the ILO, and understanding of the relationship between 
trade and workers.

  The main point, though, is respect for workers' rights and the rights 
of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO. That is an 
objective and it is an objective that has equal weight compared with 
all the other objectives. It is in the bill. To say it is not is simply 
not accurate.
  In summary, the concerns the Senator from Connecticut voices are met. 
They are in the bill. They have equal weight.
  One can argue: If it is in the bill, why not just accept what the 
Senator has suggested? We are in this unfortunate situation, though, 
where we have this bill put together, and it is a bipartisan bill. It 
passed the committee 18 to 3.
  If we are to have trade adjustment assistance enacted into law, which 
I think is the most important part of this bill, and if we are going to 
have the Andean Trade Preference Act extended, which is very important 
to South American countries, and if we are going to have fast-track 
authority, which I think is necessary for these very complex trade 
negotiations, otherwise other countries will not enter into 
negotiations with the United States, this amendment has to be defeated.
  The substance of what the Senator talks about is already covered in 
the bill. It is substantially covered in the bill almost to the degree 
the Senator wants. But to adopt the Senator's amendment will cause this 
agreement to unravel. It is already very precarious.
  I remind my colleagues the other body passed the fast-track part of 
this legislation by one vote. I know there are some Senators in the 
body who do not want to pass fast-track legislation. They are opposed 
to it. But a very significant majority of Senators wants to pass 
legislation. They are in favor of it. If this amendment were to 
succeed, due to the very strong opposition to this amendment by a very 
substantial number, if not unanimously, of the Members of the other 
side of the aisle, this amendment could unravel this bill. It is a 
delicate balance. That phrase is used over and over again, but I can 
tell you it is a delicate balance.
  I wish I could help my friend and accept the amendment, but for all 
intents and purposes, to take care of all his concerns, if he were to 
push a little further, it could very well push us over the edge. And I 
do not think we should take that risk.
  We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. We can strive for 
perfection, but if we get too close to trying to get perfection it 
causes unintended consequences elsewhere.
  I urge my colleague to remember it is a very delicate balance we have 
before us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will be very brief. My colleague and 
friend from Montana has been very patient. He has an awfully difficult 
job chairing this important committee and dealing with the various 
issues that are raised.
  As I said at the outset of my remarks, I commend the committee for 
its effort.
  I thought this might be an amendment that would be easily accepted. I 
did not expect it to evoke the kind of debate we have had from my 
colleague from Texas because it really should not be a huge debate. My 
colleague from Montana is right, we should just accept this and move 
on. I will tell you why, very simply. Again, not to be arcane, but the 
language of the bill, on pages B-4 and B-5, starting at the bottom of 
page B-4, says:

       to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of 
     children consistent with core labor standards of the 
     International Labor Organization (as defined in section 
     2113(2)). . . .

  Section 2113(2) defines those labor standards. They include:

       the right of association;
       the right to organize and bargain collectively;. . . .

  It says:

       a minimum age for the employment of children; and
       acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages 
     [and the like].

  That is very different from the ILO standards.
  So the ILO standards, as defined in section 2113(2), are different 
from the ILO standards. The ILO standards say:

       the effective abolition of child labour; and
       the elimination of discrimination. . . .

  ``The elimination of discrimination'' is not included in section 
2113. So they are different.
  I thought the amendment would have just been accepted. It says: ILO 
``as defined.'' It is different from ILO. That is the reason we wanted 
to use the language as the principals in the Jordan agreement, because 
our trading partners are not foolish. They will understand there is a 
difference.
  So ``the effective abolition of child labour'' and ``the elimination 
of discrimination'' are in the ILO standards but not in the standards 
we are going to negotiate. So that is the reason we offer the 
amendment.
  I really expected it, as I say, to be something that did not provoke 
a significant debate. But there is a distinction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is absolutely correct. And as the Senator 
well knows, in this ongoing evolution here, we have worked with the ILO 
definitions under the extension of GSP. And GSP is also in this bill, 
and that is the Generalized System of Preferences.
  The question is: What are the ILO standards? I am sure the Senator 
knows better than any other Senator that the ILO standards were changed 
in 1998. The earlier version was enacted or stated in the early 1950s. 
We, after great discussion, I might add, were able to get a modern, 
updated ILO definition in GSP, although it is not in this bill.
  My thought is, when we are in conference, that is an issue we can 
address. The Senator raises a good point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, as I understand it, in the unanimous 
consent agreement, we will come back to this debate, and there will be 
5 minutes, where the time will be equally divided, to make summations 
before the actual vote occurs.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I do ask unanimous consent that once 
debate concludes on the Dodd amendment, the amendment be set aside to 
recur at 3:55 p.m. today; that at 3:55 p.m. there be 5 minutes 
remaining for debate, with the time equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form; with no second-degree amendment in order prior to a 
vote in relation to the amendment; and that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if this debate concludes before 2 o'clock, 
Senator Kyl will come and offer an amendment. That debate will continue 
until 2 o'clock, and then from 3 to 4 he will also be debating that. We 
hope that during that period of time we can complete the deliberations 
on the Kyl amendment and also set a time, shortly after the Dodd vote, 
so we can have two votes a little after 4 o'clock. But we ought to see 
how the Kyl amendment goes before we make that decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I do not know if other Members want to be

[[Page S4450]]

heard on this amendment. I am prepared to yield the floor, and I will 
suggest the absence of a quorum shortly, unless the Chair, obviously, 
wants to do something. If others want to speak, or if Senator Kyl wants 
to come over and start his debate, I am perfectly amenable to that.
  If other Members, all of a sudden, want to come and discuss the Dodd 
amendment, the Dodd-Lieberman amendment, there will be a period to do 
so before we actually get to a vote, I assume, at 4 o'clock.
  With that, Madam President, I thank, again, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member and their staffs for 
their patience. They demonstrate great patience in these debates, and I 
thank them for that.

                          ____________________