Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4761-S4772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued

Amendment No. 3459

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time now be charged
against Senator Harkin, who has 45 minutes under the order previously
entered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding, following the statement of Senator
Harkin, that Senator Cantwell is next in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no Republican speaker seeks recognition,
that is correct.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Washington be recognized now for her time. Senator Harkin is not here,
and his time is being wasted. I ask that the order be inverted so
Senator Cantwell may now speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington is recognized for 20 minutes.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the
trade and worker assistance legislation before the Senate that we have
been working on for the last 2 weeks. I recognize the important work of
Senators Baucus and Grassley and thank them for their tireless efforts
in putting together a good trade proposal that will help workers and
businesses throughout our country.
The Baucus-Grassley package embraces a balanced, comprehensive
approach to free trade. This is the same approach adopted by our
predecessors in the 93rd Congress when they passed the original 1974
trade act which did combine the flexibility of trade negotiation
agreements with trade adjustment assistance. Indeed, with the
combination of trade promotion authority with the largest expansion of
trade adjustment assistance in history, we are making a downpayment on
the economic growth and opportunity for many people in our country that
will impact our prosperity in the future.
Trade is absolutely critical to my home State. It is critical to our
current economy. It is critical to our future economy. The Puget Sound
region is probably the most export-dependent region in the country, and
Washington is probably the most trade-dependent State in the Nation.
Trade supports about one-third of the Washington State workforce or
roughly 750,000 jobs. These jobs pay, on average, 46 percent more than
the overall statewide average. These are good jobs.
Washington truly is a portal to the Pacific. Our ports--from
Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Longview, to Vancouver--ship
everything from electronics, airplanes, to fruits, vegetables, wheat,
and hundreds of other products to over 199 countries.

I often hear from my colleagues when discussing trade promotion
authority, What is it we are going to sell from the United States to
these countries? The answer from my State reaches across many sectors:
Agriculture, manufacturing, and high-technology products. Trade
provides opportunities for both large and small businesses. Washington
State, for example, is the largest producer of soft white wheat, of
which about 85 percent of the crop is exported to foreign consumers at
substantially higher prices than Washington wheat would receive
domestically. In manufacturing, the Boeing Company basically generates
about $30 billion in sales, a big part of the Puget Sound industry. And
70 percent of the revenues come from overseas. Of the current sale of
Boeing products, 70 percent is to overseas markets. We expect that to
be 74 percent in the next several years.
In our high-tech sector, Microsoft brings in about $25 billion in
annual revenue, 50 percent of its sales being made overseas.
In these sectors--in agriculture, manufacturing, and in high
technology--our State depends on foreign markets to make our economy
work. It is not just large businesses; it is small businesses. Eric
Jenson of Seattle founded a company designing and building bowed
instruments, such as the cello. Initially his business was limited to
domestic buyers, but by putting his company on the Internet, he thrust
himself into world markets and now sells about 25 percent of his
product overseas.
As any salesperson would tell you, if you want to sell something, you
have to get your product into the store in a competitive fashion. If
you have to pay a middleman to do so, the prices will be too high.
Similarly, if we want to sell products to the world, we need to get
into foreign markets and avoid high tariffs. Currently, our businesses
and farmers face tremendous barriers to foreign markets. Indeed, while
foreign companies are able to sell to American consumers at import
duties that are averaging less about 2 percent, our companies and
farmers often face trade barriers that are 10 times as high, basically
closing them out of these market opportunities.
The key tool in lowering these tariffs and opening up markets is
substantial bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. In this way,
we can better pursue these agreements by giving the President trade
promotion authority.
Yet while we give him trade promotion authority, it is clear we
should not do that without making sure that certain objectives are met
for protection of labor and the environment. That is why the Baucus-
Grassley language makes clear to the President for the first time that
the relaxation of environmental labor laws to provide a competitive
advantage are absolutely unacceptable. By using the Jordan free trade
language as a model, the Baucus-Grassley language made stronger by our
passage of the Lieberman amendment, that I supported earlier last year,
ensures that environmental and labor protections will be principal
components for future trade relationships.
Also, the TPA bill, as amended, is absolutely clear that our domestic
laws are not to be weakened in future trade agreements.
As we open markets and help provide training to our workforce, we
need to make sure that countries do not unfairly subsidize industries
or dump their products in our market. Again, the amendment offered by
Senators Dayton and Craig which passed, and which I supported, included
extra protections for trade safeguards that ensure that our companies
and farmers are protected.

While we have looked as these trade agreements, there is one very
important aspect of this bill I want to point out: The area of trade
promotion authority. Before I get to that, I will talk about the fact
that there is a misconception: if we do not do trade promotion
authority or trade agreement, somehow we will stop the reduction in
manufacturing jobs.
It is clear we have seen a reduction in manufacturing jobs in our
country and in other countries. But we have not seen a reduction in
manufacturing output. What that really means is we have just gotten
more efficient and effective at producing products, which means the
workforce employed in these areas has been replaced by more productive
efforts, which means we need to think about how we are retraining and
reskilling our workforce for the future.

[[Page S4762]]

In the last 3 years, over 70 firms and 15,000 workers in Washington
were displaced by trade activities and qualify for TAA benefits.
Washington has probably been one of the highest States in the country
qualifying for benefits under the trade promotion package. But this
historic package goes further. I applaud my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle for supporting what I think is a great economic
development strategy for our future: Investment in the human workforce
in our country.
This legislation will provide assistance to dislocated workers in
several ways. The bill more than doubles our financial commitment to
TAA programs, which is a very needed boost. The bill recognizes that to
help workers, you have to help communities overall. It takes steps to
expand trade promotion authority to a broader group of people. It
expands the duration of the benefits from 52 weeks to 78 weeks and
allows recipients to complete their training. And the trade promotion
authority helps secondary workers who are also impacted by these job
layoffs.
GAO published an initial report that shows that TAA recipients who
completed training entered new jobs 15 percent more often than those
who did not receive training, and that those who received training, on
average, their wage was almost $2 more than their counterparts who did
not get the training.
We are seeing that this is an effective benefit. An effective
investment, a trade bill that will help open up markets overseas,
provide U.S. products, and yet legislation that will also help workers
whose jobs are lost because of trade activities and allow them to
become more productive in the future by being retrained.
The global market provides tremendous potential for our country's
future. I am glad my colleagues have had such a spirited debate on this
issue. We need to do more.

As my State shows, more and more businesses will be seeking their
economic vitality by and through these international markets. So we
need to work harder here to make sure we give the power to the
President, and to these companies, to make sure their products get fair
treatment.
This package goes a long way toward accomplishing these goals. I look
forward to working with Senators Baucus and Grassley to help prepare
our economy for the 21st century by making sure U.S. products have fair
access to international markets.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3459

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3459, which is at
the desk, cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, and Kennedy, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment? Without objection, the Senator's amendment is pending.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have now offered has to do
with the issue of child labor in world trade. I would like to speak for
a while because, among all the things we have talked about regarding
trade and what we are promoting, I believe one of the most important
elements, in terms of moving ahead in the world economic order that is
going to break down barriers of trade, one of the most important facets
is how we address the issue of child labor.
Increased world trade should not be an end in itself. It must also be
a means of achieving more economic fairness, social justice, and broad-
based sustainable development throughout the global economy.
Accordingly, as we debate this trade bill, this Senate faces a critical
test of our nation's moral resolve as well as our economic leadership.
The practical challenge before us is to help fashion enforceable
rules for a new global economy. It must be a global economy that
rewards working families in America and abroad as much as it benefits
transnational corporations, investors, and consumers.
I have long supported policies to open foreign markets to our
nation's exports through new trade agreements and through combating
unfair trade practices. I believe that new trade agreements--on the
right terms--offer many new opportunities for our nation's economy to
grow and thrive.
I hope I am also a realist. Global economic integration is proceeding
at an accelerating pace, fueled by private sector forces beyond the
control of any national government. But markets are not self-
actualizing and they certainly do not concern themselves with fairness
or equity, left to themselves. Therefore, the real role of government
at all levels now is to help define the terms on which globalization
will proceed.
This trade debate is not about free trade versus protectionism. Those
are empty labels that cloud our real choices.
And we all know that there are winners and losers every time our
country enters into a new trade agreement. Our task is to make certain
that the terms of every new trade agreement maximize the winners and
minimize the losers.
Some argue that the losers in international trade are just those
caught in the whirling winds of globalization--victims of the magic of
the marketplace who must fend for themselves. It is not that simple and
its not accidental. We choose who and what we protect. For example, the
WTO currently spells out enforceable rules on capital subsidies and
product dumping to promote fair competition in international trade, but
WTO rules don't do the same for child labor. When it comes to
abusive child labor, anything goes. Binding international agreements
and U.S. trade laws rigorously protect intellectual property rights
now, but not internationally recognized worker rights such as stopping
the worst forms of child labor. We protect CDs, endangered plants, and
spotted turtles, but not children who are brutally and systematically
exploited in the global workplace.

And so today, I say it's time that trade agreements extended their
protection to those who need it most--the exploited child laborers who
help make and process many products were consume every day.
According to the best estimates released 10 days ago by the
International Labor Organization, there are at least 352 million child
laborers between the ages of 5 and 17 who are engaged in today's global
economy.
At least 246 million of these powerless working children are involved
in abusive child labor which the business, trade union, and government
officials in the ILO agree should be abolished. Think about that--at
least 246 million child laborers who have never seen the inside of a
classroom. As many as 60 million of them are engaged in the worst forms
of child labor. They are often killed or maimed for life. They are
robbed of their childhood and denied any hope for a brighter future.
To put this in perspective, imagine a country as populous as the
United States and Mexico combined in which the entire population is
made up of child laborers. Within that population would be an
underclass of children roughly equal to all of the people living in
Germany, France, Great Britain, and Spain combined who work in
conditions that cripple their bodies and minds, stunt their growth,
deny them access to basic education, and shorten their impoverished
lives.
Now I suspect some of my colleagues are going to argue today that
child labor has nothing to do with international trade. But they are
dead wrong.
I want to show my colleagues some of the faces of these child
laborers associated with various tainted manufactured products and
other goods flowing freely in international trade as we speak here
today.
I would like to tell you a little something about their working
conditions. On the first chart here is Silgi. Silgi was 3 when this
picture was taken. She started knotting soccer balls to help her mother
and four sisters make 75 cents a day. Her mother and four sisters and
her altogether make 75 cents a day knotting these soccer balls, which
our kids use on the soccer fields in America.
This is Tariq. Tariq is a 12-year-old Pakistani boy. He stitches
these leather pieces together to make soccer balls. Pakistan produces 5
million soccer balls a year, just for the U.S. market. Tariq earns 60
cents a day making these soccer balls. As you can see, they have the
nice swoosh on them there. You know they are not using these in
Pakistan. This is what our kids are

[[Page S4763]]

playing with on those soccer fields every Saturday when we take them
down to play. Think about it. Think about it the next time your kid
kicks that soccer ball. Think about Tariq, 12 years old, making 60
cents a day. He is not in school. He is not learning anything. These
soccer balls, obviously, go into international trade.
This is a photo of a sign. Three years ago, in early 1999, I took a
trip to Southeast Asia to look at the issue of child labor. I was in
Katmandu, in Nepal, when a former child laborer sought me out. I knew
of him through other contacts. I had never met him before. I met him
after dark on a Sunday night. He had arranged to visit a clandestine
place where they make carpets. He knew the guard at the gate. He also
knew, he thought, that the owner was gone. So we drove down there.
As we came up to the gate, here was the sign posted outside of this
gate. It says in Nepalese but also in English:

Child labor under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited.

This is not a doctored document. I took this picture. I took this
picture with my own hands before we went in.
As we went through a gate and down a dark alley, we took a left and
there was this building. All the windows were blacked out. We walked in
the door and this is what we saw. Children as young as 7, 8 years of
age, sitting at these looms knotting these carpets. Again, to show you
it is real, that is me. I was there. My assistant took this picture.
They didn't know we were coming.
In the past, anybody who would go in there to inspect it would give
them advance notice. They had a way of getting all of these kids out
the back door and scattered around in a compound so you wouldn't see
all those kids working.
This is on a Sunday night after dark with kids as young as 8 years of
age sitting in a row. It is dark back here. But there are dozens and
dozens of these kids along both sides up and down these rows working on
these looms. It is dusty. All of that carpet dust comes out. That is
what these kids breathe.
Again, don't tell me this isn't happening. I was there. I saw it
firsthand.
These are two Nepalese girls I spoke to through an interpreter. They
were very cautious about speaking with me. They had probably never laid
eyes on an Anglo before. They were sitting there knitting carpet. I
tried to determine their age. As best I could determine, they were
under 12 years of age. But I really couldn't determine exactly what
their age was.
All I can tell you is that at about this time the owner showed up. I
was told the owner wasn't there. There was a big commotion going on.
The owner came in. Of course, he was extremely upset we were on his
premises and ordered us to leave, which we did, but not until I had the
documentation that this was happening.
The next day--I don't have pictures--I went to a carpet manufacturer
in the same city, Katmandu. There is a carpet manufacturer that adheres
to the Rugmark label. They don't employ any child labor--none
whatsoever. They certify it with a little rug mark. These rugs also go
into international commerce. Here is one plant in Katmandu that does
not hire child labor. They are making moneymaking carpets for
international trade.
Probably 5 miles away is a place such as this. There are dozens of
these around making carpeting with these kids for international
commerce, and they are also competing with the carpets made by a
legitimate a manufacturer who does not employ child labor.
This is Amir. Amir is second from the left. He is age 8. He quit
school in the third grade and spends his days sitting on a concrete
floor sharpening surgical scissors. These are surgical scissors and
surgical knives. This is in Pakistan. Amir is 8 years old. He earns $2
a week. All day long, they breathe in this metal dust from sharpening
these scissors.
Mr. President, I hope neither you nor anyone else listening to my
remarks has occasion to go into a surgical room. If you do, think about
the scissors and the knives the surgeon will use that were made by
Amir, 8 years of age. Don't tell me this doesn't have something to do
with international commerce.
This is 7-year-old Sonu. Sonu lives in Jullundur, India. He cuts
yellow-dyed chicken feathers for badminton shuttlecocks. That is what
he does 7 days a week.
There is a cover story in a Hong Kong newspaper about some Chinese
girls just across the border who are making toys for McDonald's. Again,
it goes into international commerce. The amount of money they earn in 1
day is about enough for them to buy a Happy Meal for 1 day.
I want to add this. I want to be fair to McDonald's. When McDonald's
found this out, they took action to stop it. I commend McDonald's for
at least taking action to stop it.
My point is that without vigorous enforcement and oversight, that is
what happens in international commerce. If it had not been for someone
breaking into that factory and taking these pictures, MacDonald's might
not have known about it either.

This is a rather busy chart. This shows how child slaves--make no
mistake about it, they are slaves, bought and sold. They are used in
the cocoa and chocolate industry.
Last year, Knight Ridder newspapers in a series of articles exposed
child slavery on west African cocoa farms. This is the cocoa that young
slaves harvest and produce. It goes to Europe. It goes into the
Philadelphia area. Fifty percent of all the cocoa entering the United
States is unloaded in Philadelphia. Chocolate is made using this Ivory
Coast cocoa harvested by child slaves.
Because of this, and because of what is happening globally with the
use of child labor in international commerce, I am offering this
amendment to make ending the worst forms of child labor a principal
negotiating objective as nearly on a par as possible with the principal
negotiating objective in this bill on protecting intellectual property
rights.
It is often said, if you can protect the CD, you ought to be able to
protect the child. If you are going to protect the song, how about
protecting the kid?
I know Chairman Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee
share my concerns about abusive child labor. There was some reference
in the language in this bill, but I think we can and should do better.
Before explaining my amendment in greater detail, I want to make
clear what constitutes the worst forms of child labor. We are not
talking about children who work part time after school or on weekends
in the corner grocery store. It is not, for example, kids helping with
the chores on a family farm. There is nothing wrong with that. I worked
in my youth. All of us did when we were young people. We worked. That
is not the issue we are addressing.
This amendment is focused on the use of the worst forms of child
labor in the production of tainted goods that flow in the international
trading system today and which we import in the American marketplace.
Let me cite a few examples of these products and where they come from,
according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
We import more than $250 million worth of hand-knotted oriental rugs
every year from India, Nepal, and Pakistan, produced by as many as 1
million child laborers, many of whom are kidnapped and enslaved,
bonded, or indentured.
As I said, if you are ever wheeled into surgery, remember that many
of the surgical knives and scissors are finished by thousands of child
laborers in Pakistan--these pictures I just showed you. If any Member
wishes, I can give you the names of the U.S. medical supply companies
that freely import this surgical equipment.
Fortunately, there is now a universal definition of what constitutes
the worst forms of child labor.
You may ask, What do you mean by the worst forms? We know. They are
spelled out in ILO Convention No. 182, which was adopted unanimously in
1999, the first time ever. It was ultimately ratified at a record-
setting pace by 117 trading nations, including, I am proud to say, the
United States. In fact, the United States was the third country to
ratify ILO Convention No. 182. It was a resolution offered by Senator
Helms and myself.
In November of 1999, it was adopted by the Senate on a 96-to-0 vote.
The United States is now on record as ratifying and abiding by ILO
Convention 182.
When we talk about the worst forms of child labor, what are we
talking about?

[[Page S4764]]

We are talking about child slavery, child bondage, the use of
children in pornography, much of which enters this country, trafficking
in children, buying and selling of kids, the recruitment of children in
the production or sale of narcotics, and hazardous work by children
where they are breathing metal dust or making glass in India in very
high temperatures. That is what we are talking about.
That is what is in ILO Convention 182. That is the worst form of
child labor.
We are not talking about kids working part time or on weekends. It is
slavery, it is bondage, it is pornography, and it is hazardous types of
work.
Combatting abusive child labor and linking respect for other
internationally recognized worker rights to the conduct of
international trade is not new. At various times during the 20th
century, numerous international agreements and U.S. policy have
explicitly recognized that fair labor standards are necessary for the
working of a fair trading system.
More to the point, I call to the attention of my colleagues article
XX of the original GATT. Article XX was brought forward in the 1994
GATT deliberations. It was incorporated in the current operating rules
of the World Trade Organization, the WTO.
This article spells out 10 different exceptions whereby WTO member
countries may enact national laws without being in violation of
existing WTO or GATT requirements and international trade rules.
This is what it says, article XX (a) and (b):

Subject to the requirements that such measures are not
applied in a manner which would constitute a means of
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction
on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any
contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or
health.

Article XX: to protect human health and life, protect public morals.
Those are exceptions that countries may adopt and not be in violation
of WTO.
At this time, and in this new era of globalization, we have the
wherewithal to end the use of abused child labor in the production of
goods for international trade. The only questions are whether we have
the political will and whether America will lead the way.
More than 50 years after its adoption, article XX remains untested.
There has been no trade jurisprudence to flush out its practical
meaning or scope.
So I ask my colleagues, what better place to start than for this
Congress to require U.S. trade negotiators to make it a principal
negotiating objective to secure an effective international ban on trade
in goods produced by defenseless children under 18 who are trapped in
the worst forms of child labor?
We can do that by adopting this amendment, to make ending the use of
the worst forms of child labor in international trade a principal
priority for our negotiators. It is entirely in keeping with what
President Bush said last year at the Western Hemisphere Trade Summit in
Quebec. This is what President Bush said last year:

Our commitment to open trade must be matched by a strong
commitment to protecting our environment and improving labor
standards.

What could be more important than protecting children?
Using international trade agreements to combat abusive child labor is
good international development policy. Abusive child labor perpetuates
the cycle of poverty across generations. It is both a cause and an
effect to the grinding poverty in today's global economy.
Much of this should be self-evident. No nation has ever achieved
broad-based economic prosperity on the backs of working children, and
no such nation should be allowed to try according to any standard of
fair international trade and competition.
Ending the use of abusive child labor, especially in the conduct of
international trade, is not morally disguised protectionism. In fact,
public support for continued trade liberalization will be enhanced by
eliminating trade in products made with the worst forms of child labor.

Listen to the words of Ambassador Bill Brock, U.S. Trade
Representative and Labor Secretary in the Reagan administration. This
is what former Ambassador Brock said. I am not going to read the whole
thing:

Those countries which are flooding world markets with goods
made by children . . . are doing more harm to the principle
of free and fair trade than any protectionist groups I can
think of.

I could not have said it better. No one could say it better. What
Ambassador Bill Brock said is absolutely right: Those countries
flooding the world markets with goods made by these kids are doing more
harm to the principle of free and fair trade than any protectionist
groups of which I can think.
This amendment is needed because we have this widespread use of the
worst forms of child labor in products flowing throughout the
international trading system.
First, as reported, this bill does not include the prohibition of the
worst forms of child labor in the proposed definition of core labor
standards. That is why I think this amendment is so necessary. The
bill, as reported, does speak to it but does not include the
prohibition of the worst forms of child labor.
It does not assign a high enough priority and visibility among U.S.
trade policy objectives to deter the worst forms of child labor.
Secondly, the bill calls for ``promoting respect for worker rights
and the rights of children consistent with core labor standards of the
ILO'' as one of the eight overall trade negotiating objectives. That is
decidedly weaker than what this amendment would do to make it a
principal negotiating objective of the U.S., ``ensuring that any
multilateral or bilateral trade agreement that is entered into by the
U.S. includes provisions obligating all parties to such agreements to
enact and enforce national laws and to meet their international legal
obligations to prevent the use of the worst forms of child labor.''
That is what is in the amendment.
Third, the bill before us makes intellectual property rights one of
14 principal U.S. negotiating objectives and, as such, calls for
``providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights,
including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil,
administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.''
That is pretty clear and specific.
The amendment we have before us calls for the same clarity of
purpose, resolve, and range of enforcement mechanisms with regard to
preventing the use of the worst forms of child labor in international
trade.
Quite simply, this amendment will ensure that the President has the
authority and backing of the Congress to negotiate to end the worst
forms of child labor in international trade on a par, as nearly as
possible, with the President's authority to negotiate and protect
intellectual property rights.
In conclusion, this amendment does not dictate a predetermined
outcome on how best to negotiate enforceable means. It does not tie the
hands of our trade negotiators in any fashion. But it does make it
crystal clear that one, among several, of our 15 principal trade
negotiating objectives will be the enactment and effective enforcement
of national laws by other countries and compliance with their
international legal obligations to eliminate the use of the worst forms
of child labor in international trade.

A few days ago, I met in my office with several former child laborers
from around the world. They were on their way to New York City with
Kailash Satyarthi, leader of the Global March Against Child Labor, and
one of the great heroes in the world today for getting kids out of the
worst forms of child labor.
Kailash brought these kids from around the world to take them to the
United Nations for the first ever General Assembly Special Session on
Children.
I talked to one little boy in my office who had been branded on his
face and his arms because he had been drinking a little bit of leftover
milk. He came all the way from New Delhi to add his voice to a growing
children's chorus in New York and from around the world, pleading for
us adult policymakers ``to create a world fit for children.''
So for Ashraf, a young boy who escaped enslavement and was in my
office, and for tens of millions of other

[[Page S4765]]

children still trapped in the worst forms of child labor, let's use our
leverage, the power of our Government, our moral leadership, and
require that U.S. negotiators do their part. They should bring back to
this Congress enforceable trade agreements that outlaw and end this
sordid, dirty dimension of international trade once and for all.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. President, my staff, the staff of Senator Baucus, the staff of
Senator Grassley, along with people in the administration, have been
working for the last few days to work out an agreement. We agreed to
make some changes on our side, but still to keep the essence of this
amendment alive, to make it one of the primary negotiating objectives--
one of the primary negotiating objectives--and that is still in the
amendment. So we have modified it and, as such, we have reached an
agreement with Senator Baucus and with Senator Grassley.

Amendment No. 3459, As Modified

So I have talked with managers of this bill on both sides, and I now
ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the changes that I
have sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of section 2102(b), insert the following:
(15) Worst forms of child labor.--The principal negotiating
objectives of the United States regarding the trade-related
aspects of the worst forms of child labor are--
(A) to prevent distortions in the conduct of international
trade caused by the use of the worst forms of child labor, in
whole or in part, in the production of goods for export in
international commerce; and
(B) to redress unfair and illegitimate competition based
upon the use of the worst forms of child labor, in whole or
in part, in the production of goods for export in
international commerce, including through--
(i) promoting universal ratification and full compliance by
all trading nations with ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning
the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of
the Worst Forms of Child Labor, particularly with respect to
meeting enforcement obligations under that Convention and
related international agreements;
(ii) pursuing action under Article XX of GATT 1994 to allow
WTO members to restrict imports of goods found to be produced
with the worst forms of child labor;
(iii) seeking commitments by parties to any multilateral or
bilateral trade agreement that is entered into by the United
States to ensure that national laws reflect international
standards regarding prevention of the use of the worst forms
of child labor, especially in the conduct of international
trade; and
(iv) seeking commitments by trade agreement parties to
vigorously enforce laws prohibiting the use of the worst
forms of child labor, especially in the conduct of
international trade, through accessible, expeditious, and
effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement
mechanisms.

Mr. HARKIN. It is my understanding from the managers that both sides
will agree to my amendment as modified. I thank both Senator Baucus and
Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, and their respective staffs
for working with my staff. I know it took a lot of time. I know these
things are sometimes hard to work out and think about--the meanings of
words, phrases, and their impact. I thank them for working this out in
a manner that preserves the essence of this amendment, which is, make
it one of our primary negotiating objectives; that the President of the
United States seek to ensure that countries with whom we have trade not
only abide by their own labor laws but abide by ILO convention 182 to
prohibit, to put an end to the worst forms of child labor in
international trade.
I have been working on this issue for 10 years. I first introduced a
bill in 1992. For me, today, to have this accepted by the managers to
put into the fast-track bill represents a giant step forward. We made
the first step a couple years ago when the Senate voted 96 to 0 to
ratify ILO convention 182. Now this puts some teeth into it. This says
that from now on when we negotiate trade agreements, this will be one
of our primary negotiating objectives.
The next step, I hope, is for the conference to make sure they keep
this language. The House does not have it. I hope our Senate
negotiators can keep this language. It is vitally important. It has
widespread support in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. I know
it has widespread support among the American people. It has widespread
support among our trading partners in other parts of the world.
Now is the time for the United States to take that leadership. I hope
and pray and trust that when this goes to conference, we will keep this
provision that is so vital to ensuring that we have not only a free
trading system in the future but a trading system that does not
perpetuate this cycle of poverty and of ignorance throughout the globe
because so many countries are using abusive child labor to make these
products.
Hopefully, they will come back from conference and we will have that.
I look forward to the day when a new trade bill comes before the Senate
for us to ratify and in that trade bill are steps that are being taken,
agreements that have been made to end abusive child labor in
international trade. That will be the day when we can tell all these
children I have shown in all the pictures that they do have a brighter
future, that they will be able to go to school and learn and not be
caught in this cycle of poverty and repression, bondage, slavery,
childhood prostitution, and childhood pornography into which they are
now trapped.
I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and their staffs for
working this out. I encourage them to do everything they can to hold
this in conference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin for working
closely with us over a long period of time to reach agreement on exact
language. He has spoken as to how difficult that was and how hard
everybody worked. I won't repeat any of that. I associate myself with
that part of Senator Harkin's remarks.
I support this amendment. For Senator Baucus and I, as managers of
the legislation, were glad to have it go through in this fashion.
When discussing trade and particularly this trade promotion authority
bill, it is important to put the issue of child labor in the proper
context. What I want to say as the bottom line, before I say everything
above the bottom line, is that trade is the instrument to improve the
economy of countries because economies that are not in poverty do not
have child labor problems that countries in poverty do have.
I will discuss this from two standpoints: One, how the bill was
crafted even prior to Senator Harkin's amendment to deal with the
issues of child labor, and also what we are doing as Government and the
people of the United States to help in other ways on the issue of child
labor.
First, I will address what the United States has done with respect to
internationally recognized working rights. Our country is not a
newcomer to this arena. We have formally recognized core labor
standards, including workers' rights, in our statutes since 1984. Many
of the core labor standards that we recognize are similar or identical
to those of the International Labor Organization.
In addition, the United States has consistently been on the front
lines in fighting for internationally recognized workers' rights. We
have also fought the problem of child labor around the globe, and we
have done it quite effectively over the years.
I have consistently supported and encouraged these efforts because
although these efforts have not been on the front pages of the
newspaper, they do have a track record. We know that these efforts
work.
Most of what we as a country do internationally is part of what I
call a positive agenda for workers' rights and for the elimination of
child labor. It has little or nothing to do with trade. The United
States is the single largest donor to the International Labor
Organizations's premier program for addressing the child labor problem,
known as the International Program for Eradication of Child Labor. This
program does a lot of heavy lifting and gets things done.
For example, the Program for Eradication of Child Labor works
effectively with local nongovernmental organizations. This Program for
Eradication of Child Labor helps to ensure that when children are found
working in conditions where they are being exploited

[[Page S4766]]

and are taken from work, they are put into schools. It helps provide
funds to poor parents so that when their children are taken from work,
the family does not starve.
We do many other things as part of this ``positive agenda.'' The
United States helps fund School Lunch Programs worldwide. Something as
simple as providing a school lunch to a poor child in a developing
country is one of the most effective things we can do to combat child
labor because it helps supplement a poor family's income.
The United States is also actively engaged in labor law enforcement
around the world. We provide technical assistance to help countries
change their laws so that they can be more effective in combating child
labor. We help train the inspectors in foreign countries who go out and
investigate these child labor violations.
In addition, the U.S. Government is a signatory to the International
Labor Organization Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor
such as slavery, bondage, enforced labor, child prostitution, and
working in dangerous conditions.
Clearly, then, trade and openness is not the problem for poor
countries. Rather, it is as simple as too little trade and not enough
openness, particularly openness of their economy.
The International Labor Organization Convention on the worst forms of
child labor is extremely significant for other reasons. It admits that
the overwhelming cause of child prostitution, child slavery, and forced
labor is, in fact, poverty.
This is where trade and open economies can and do make a huge
difference in the lives of people. Over the past 20 years,
globalization has been a great force for good in reducing poverty. It
has sparked a dramatic rise in living standards in many countries
across the world. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty.
There is overwhelming evidence that trade boosts economic growth.
A famous Harvard University study by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and
Andrew Warner found that developing countries with open economies grew
4.5 percent a year, while developing countries with closed borders grew
a paltry seven-tenths of 1 percent. So it is 4.5-percent growth for
countries with open economies to less than 1 percent--seven-tenths of 1
percent--a year for countries with closed economies. That is simple,
common sense. Open the economies of poor countries and they will grow
economically and they can lift themselves out of poverty.
At that rate, open economies double in size every 16 years, while
closed ones can only reach that goal in 100 years. Again, 16 years
doubling for an open economy, 100 years for doubling the economy of a
closed economy.
The rapid growth of developing countries that embrace free trade
always leads to a rapid decrease in child labor. A 1998 World Bank
report shows that once per capita GDP hits $500 per year--just $500 per
year--the incidence of child labor falls dramatically. Clearly, then,
promoting trade, freedom, and openness is one of the single most
important things we can do to end child labor around the world.
It is not the only solution, though, and I don't pretend that it is.
But trade and open markets are a key part of any solution to ending
poverty and eradicating child labor.
The only way we can promote and lead the effort to open world markets
is if the President of the United States has the authority to negotiate
credibly with other countries at the bargaining table. That is what
trade promotion authority is all about.
History has shown time and again that if the United States does not
lead in the effort to open markets and tear down job-killing trade
barriers, the gains we made in the past can be lost.
Finally, I want to point out that the core labor standards dealing
with the worst forms of child labor that we are addressing in this
amendment by Senator Harkin are embedded in the same core labor
standards that the United States has recognized and has promoted in our
law since 1984.
So I commend my colleague from Iowa for making positive contributions
to this debate. When it comes to child labor and workers' rights, this
modified amendment and this total trade promotion authority bill does
the right thing.
I strongly urge my colleagues to do the right thing again and pass it
with the overwhelming bipartisan vote as we did coming out of the
Finance Committee, 18 to 3.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3459), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the pending
legislation to provide fast-track authority to the President. This is
not the first time I have risen on this floor in order to urge
colleagues to join in opposing this authority. The same issue was
before us in 1997. At that time, the administration's request was
rejected.
At this time, we are once again being asked to approve the same
procedure, but it is being presented under a different name. It has
been wrapped up in a different package. It is now being called ``trade
promotion authority.'' In fact, that term is a euphemism--indeed, a
misleading euphemism. The President already has broad and flexible
authority to promote trade in numerous different ways, under a number
of existing statutes.
The issue here is the latitude the Executive has to negotiate trade
agreements and the role the Congress will play with respect to such
agreements. I think that is more aptly described as fast-track
authority, and that is the specific matter I want to address for a few
moments.
Fast track is a procedure that radically redefines and limits the
authority granted to Congress in article II, section 8 of the
Constitution ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' We need to
recognize that here today. This is a vast derogation of congressional
authority. It has only a brief history. It was first enacted in 1974,
it expired just twenty years later, in 1994, and in my view its long-
term ramifications are as yet little understood.
Fast-track authority differs fundamentally from the earlier
discretion the Congress granted to the Executive in the Reciprocal
Trade Act of 1934, which governed trade negotiations for 40 years. That
discretion, known as proclamation authority, gave power to the
Executive to set tariffs within limits and periods of time that had
been set by the Congress. In other words, the Congress defined the
parameters of Executive authority in trade negotiations, and the
Executive had to work within those parameters in using the proclamation
authority. It did not give to the President authority to negotiate
trade agreements requiring changes in U.S. law, let alone limit the
discretion of the Congress to approve or reject such changes.
In contrast, fast-track authority gives the President both the power
to negotiate trade agreements requiring changes in existing U.S. law,
and effectively denies to the Congress the power to approve or reject
changes to U.S. law on their merits, leaving it only with a ``yes'' or
``no'' vote on the entire trade package.
Fast-track authority, therefore, greatly expands the latitude of the
Executive to negotiate an agreement while eliminating the ability of
the Congress to consider components of the trade agreement. Fast track
guarantees that the executive branch can write legislation implementing
a trade agreement and have that legislation voted on, up or down,
within 90 days of its submission to Congress, with only 20 hours of
debate and with no opportunity for amendment.
Let me repeat that. Fast-track authority gives the executive branch
the power to write legislation implementing a trade agreement, to have
that legislation voted on, up or down, within 90 days of its submission
to the Congress, with only 20 hours of debate and with no opportunity
for amendments by the Congress.
Even when vast changes in existing U.S. law may be at stake, under
fast-track procedures, Congress has only all-or-nothing decision-making
authority.

[[Page S4767]]

This is a sobering derogation of the congressional power set out in
article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which explicitly gives to the
Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
In no other area of U.S. international negotiation and agreement do
fast-track provisions prevail. All major U.S. tax treaties, arms
control, territorial, defense, and other treaties are still
accomplished through established constitutional procedures fully
respecting the role of the Congress and the ability of the Congress, if
it chooses, to make the determination to change or amend those
agreements.
SALT I, SALT II, START, the nuclear weapons reduction treaties, the
Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the
Customs Harmonization Convention, the Montreal Protocol, dozens of
international treaties, to mention only some--all these are among the
international agreements negotiated by the United States without fast-
track authority.
Proponents of fast track often argue that in the area of trade, the
Executive will find it difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate
agreements without fast-track authority, but a look at the record amply
demonstrates this is not the case.
First, fast-track procedures are relevant only to trade agreements
that require Congress to make changes in existing U.S. law in order for
the agreements to be implemented. Most trade agreements do not require
legislative changes and thus do not come within the purview of this
provision.
Of the hundreds of trade agreements entered into between 1974 and
1994 when fast-track authority was in effect, only five have required
fast-track procedures.
In 1994, after just 20 years, fast track elapsed. This is the only
time period in the nation's history when we have had fast track, the
only time we effectively shut Congress out of the process of thoroughly
considering trade agreements.
In 1997 the Congress declined to extend it, and yet since 1994
hundreds of trade agreements were successfully negotiated and
implemented. For example, in the year 2000, the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative identified the following agreements, all of them
negotiated without fast track, as having truly historic importance: The
Information Technology Agreement, under which 40 countries eliminated
import duties and other charges on information technology products
representing more than 90 percent of the telecommunications market; the
Financial Services Agreement, which has helped U.S. service suppliers
expand commercial operations and find new market opportunities around
the world; the Basic Telecommunications Agreement, which opened up 95
percent of the world telecommunications market to competition; and the
bilateral agreement on China's WTO accession, which opened this large
economy to American products and services. I could cite many other
examples.
During this twenty-year period when there was no fast-track
authority--although we are being told that without it trade agreements
cannot be negotiated, whereas the record shows this is clearly not the
case--the Executive negotiated and then obtained congressional approval
for normalizing our trade relations with a new Caribbean Basin
initiative bill and with the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. Without
any fast-track authority, the previous administration negotiated major
bilateral trade agreements with Jordan and Vietnam. The groundbreaking
United States-Jordan agreement was submitted to and approved by
Congress in January of last year, and although negotiated by the
previous administration, the United States-Vietnam agreement was
actually submitted to Congress by the current administration and was
approved in June of last year. So recent efforts to arrive at trade
agreements without fast-track authority have been notably successful.

The abundant experience of the last 8 years leads to the conclusion
that the arguments for fast track are much overstated. Current
negotiations on bilateral free trade agreements with Chile and
Singapore offer yet another case in point since the administration has
found it possible and prudent to carry forward negotiations initiated
by its predecessor.
The case of Chile is particularly instructive. In 1994, Chile
declined an invitation to join NAFTA, citing the administration's
failure to obtain fast-track authority. Six years later, however, Chile
reconsidered its position and in 2000 entered into negotiations on a
United States-Chile bilateral agreement.
Negotiations have continued since then more or less on a monthly
basis, and in a report dated April 1 of last year entitled ``Chile
Political and Economic Conditions in U.S. Relations,'' the CRS
concluded that Chile is willing and able to conclude and live up to a
broad bilateral FTA with the United States, suggesting this could be a
comparatively easy trade agreement for the U.S. to conclude.
The absence of fast track has not prevented negotiations with Chile
or with Singapore. Yet we are now being asked to have the procedure
apply retroactively without any strong case being made for its
necessity.
Let me make a final observation. There is now considerable debate and
concern around the world about globalization, and we have seen mounting
levels of protests, both in this country and abroad. It is clear that
the trend towards globalization has raised very fundamental questions
on a range of issues, including labor standards and environmental
standards. A real basis for public concern is precisely the sweeping
power to affect these issues that fast-track authority gives to the
administration. There are many other issues, of course, but labor
standards and environmental standards are two leading examples. For
good reason, the public is apprehensive when important decisions can be
made behind closed doors, without adequate open debate and
consideration, which is exactly what happens with fast-track authority.
One of the most important functions of the Congress is to provide a
forum in which matters of public concern can be thoroughly and openly
discussed, in which alternatives can be presented and either accepted
or rejected. The fast-track authority virtually completely undercuts
congressional power--something the nation in all its history never
countenanced, except during the 20-year period between 1974 and 1994.
In effect fast track excludes the people's representatives from
engaging in a process whereby they can examine the components of a
trade agreement.
People say: But the Congress may change the trade agreement. So be
it. That is the risk we run. Congressional scrutiny of arms-control
agreements has never been restricted by fast-track authority, and
surely they are as important as trade agreements.
We do not take those on an all-or-nothing basis. They are not
presented to us for a simple yes-or-no vote. We have the opportunity to
consider the various components of the package and to pass some
judgment upon them. That is one of the most important functions of the
Congress.
Indeed, I think one of the deep concerns of the American people is
that trade agreements affecting vital areas of social and economic
policy should not be hurried through the Congress using an expedited
and restrictive procedure. It must be clearly understood that this
procedure puts the Congress in the position of being able only to say
yes or no to the entire package. It denies to the Congress the ability
to carry out its constitutional responsibilities in terms of regulating
commerce with foreign nations. I therefore strongly urge the rejection
of the fast-track procedure contained in this legislation and intend to
vote against this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what is the situation with regard to time?
Are we dividing it? Are we under the normal postcloture that any Member
can have an hour? Is that the program?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; we are following the
normal procedure.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I do not know where we go from here in
terms of procedure. I would like to say a few things. I will try to be
brief.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will allow me to make one statement in
answer partly to his question, we have set up a queue of speakers, and
Republicans certainly have the right to have a speaker

[[Page S4768]]

now, which would be the Senator from Texas. Following that is Senator
Kennedy. Following Senator Kennedy's statement and if there is a
Republican after him, we would start the bioterrorism debate for 90
minutes and then we would start voting on this matter.
The Senator from Texas asked a question earlier. Under the hour that
the Senator has postcloture, how much time does he have, I ask the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 28 minutes
remaining.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have a bunch of amendments pending, and
I am against every one of them. Let me outline why.
First, this bill is about trade. I am for it. All these amendments
are against it. We are getting ready to pass this bill, I hope, by 70
votes or so. So if a Senator is for the bill and wants more trade, the
quickest way to get it in the best form is to vote against these
antitrade amendments.
I am going to address three of them really quickly. First, the
Hollings amendment. I want to remind my colleagues that thanks to the
generosity of the American taxpayer, if someone loses their job because
of international competition, they get a series of benefits under trade
adjustment assistance that no other American gets. Anyone who loses
their job, for example, in the textile industry qualifies for trade
adjustment assistance if they can show or it can be shown that their
job loss had anything to do with foreign competition; that it was the
most significant factor in them losing their job.
As a result, textile workers are eligible for trade adjustment
assistance today. The amendment of Senator Hollings says if someone has
lost their job in the textile industry anytime over the last 3 and a
half years, or if they lose their job in the future, even if it has
absolutely nothing to do with foreign trade, they should qualify for
trade adjustment assistance.
I think any of our colleagues can see the inequity in that. My State
is the ninth largest textile State in the Nation. I love my textile
workers as much as anybody else does, but I do not know how having a
program to help people who lose their jobs because of foreign
competition can be justified, and a judgment is made based on each
circumstance, and then come along and say, but if someone works in the
textile industry and they have lost their job, we are going to treat
them differently than everybody else. I think there is a tremendous
equity problem in that, and I think people working in the textile
business would understand it. Also, the fact that it would apply not
just for people who lose their jobs in the future but for 3 and a half
years in the past.
So for that reason, I oppose the Hollings amendment.
Turning now to the Landrieu amendment, of all groups that benefit
from trade, the maritime industries are the biggest beneficiaries. The
great bulk of foreign trade comes into our ports. I am blessed in
Texas, thank God, every day, to have many great ports. My maritime
workers get to work on shipping things out, they get to work on
bringing things in, and of all the people I have, they are among the
most pro-trade people, for the obvious reason: Not only do they benefit
as Americans, but they benefit because they get an opportunity to have
more competition for their services.
The Landrieu amendment extraordinarily says if someone loses their
job in the maritime industry, whether it has anything to do with
foreign competition--because they would get trade adjustment assistance
if it did, under current law--that they qualify for trade adjustment
assistance.
What I think is extraordinary about this amendment is not that it
treats people differently based on what kind of job they have, which I
kind of think a little bit violates equal justice under the law, but of
all the workers who would be said tend to be benefited by foreign
trade, maritime workers would be virtually at the top of the list.
In fact, looking back over my political career, the unions that have
tended to support me have been maritime unions. Now they all ought to
support me, but they have not. The maritime people have supported me
because I support foreign trade. I do not understand why, of all
workers in America, we would single out maritime workers as losers from
trade. A, they are the biggest beneficiaries; and, B, to the extent
that anybody was a loser, they could qualify for trade adjustment
assistance.
So I think the argument for the Hollings amendment is very weak. I
think it is inequitable. I think it is unfair. It is illogical. I think
all of those things, and more, apply to the Landrieu amendment.
Turning very briefly to the Corzine amendment, the Corzine amendment
says the President cannot enter into a trade agreement that has
provisions that privatize public services.
Now the Corzine amendment--I am not sure exactly how it is going to
be argued because I had not heard it argued, but let me explain the
problem with it. One of the biggest problems we have is getting
countries such as Japan to let our contractors bid on their telephone
company equipment and technology, trying to get them to let our
contractors bid on building airports. The fundamental argument we use
is we force them, whether these activities are controlled by government
or whether they are controlled in the private sector, to move toward
opening up competition.

The Corzine amendment would not allow us to negotiate a trade
agreement where we push a foreign competitor to open up a public
service for competition. My guess is Senator Corzine is going to argue
he does not want a trade agreement that opens up something our
Government does for competition. The problem is, we cannot have trade
agreements where we say, OK, we are not going to negotiate anything
that opens up a public service in America for competition and expect
other countries to do the same.
I remind my colleagues, no matter how much you think of government
doing things, rather than the private sector, we do less than anyone in
the world. When we cannot bid on selling telephone equipment in Japan,
it is because they have a national telephone company that is basically
run and controlled by the Government. Certainly we don't want to write
in our fast-track authority that we cannot negotiate to force Japan to
open up those contracts to AT&T, to Bell, to all of our manufacturers.
We have spent years doing that. I don't think we would want to undo it.
One might argue if the Corzine amendment could simply prevent
cooperation in things provided by the Government in America, that would
be one thing. I personally don't think that is very good. But if you
did, the problem is, these trade agreements are bilateral. You cannot
take something off the table in our negotiations and leave similar
things on the table in negotiating with our trading partner.
I am not quite clear what he is trying to get at. Whatever it is, it
is not good. We generate less of our GDP through government-provided
services than any other major country in the world. Our biggest problem
in many areas in promoting exports of American products is opening up
government monopolies. This language basically takes us out of all
those markets. It is a very bad proposal, in my opinion.
Let me make it clear to our colleagues: I would like to see us enter
into an agreement where we could go ahead and begin voting on the
amendments that are pending so we can guarantee each side has a very
short window to sum up things. We have been debating this bill for 18
days and our memories are starting to get stretched a little. We
probably have a dozen amendments, more or less, that are pending which
could be voted on. If we simply sit around and squander 3\1/2\ hours
and let the clock run out on postcloture time, under the rule there is
no debate of these amendments, they simply are voted on.
I urge, especially the leaders on the other side of the aisle, to
work out an agreement where we can begin voting and give people a short
period of time to make their argument so we can vote. I understand we
have a meeting at 2:30 and we are going to do bioterrorism during that
hour. I hope when we come back from that meeting at 3:30, rather than
waiting until 6:03, or whenever the time is, we could begin at that
point voting, and we could give people a little bit of time to say what
their amendment is about and give other people a little bit of time to
say

[[Page S4769]]

why they are against it. We have a couple of pending amendments that
have points of order against them. It would be my intention when we get
back from the 2:30 meeting, to see if we can make those points of order
against those amendments--there may be an effort to waive the point of
order. If so, there would be a vote at that point. I hope we can get
this process going. There is no reason, in my opinion, to wait around
until 6 o'clock and not give people an opportunity to make their case.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, at least it was the
intention of the leadership, following my comments, we were going to go
to the bioterrorism conference. As I understand it--I know our
colleagues will be attending a 2:30 meeting and briefing--I will speak
for a period of time and then the Republican side will speak for a
period of time and then we will go to the time agreement on
bioterrorism, and there is 45 minutes a side; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. And we will have a vote after the using of the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have serious reservations about this bill and I
intend to vote against it. I have a lifelong record of supporting free
trade. I have supported trade agreements in the past. I have supported
trade agreements with China and Vietnam. I supported NAFTA. I supported
GATT. But this bill protects the rights of corporations at the expense
of workers and the environment. It is not free trade and it is not fair
trade when we must compete with countries and foreign businesses that
abuse their workers and ignore their obligations to the environment
with impunity.
The proponents of this bill have said that this is the most
progressive trade bill on the issues of labor and the environment ever
to reach the Senate. I agree there is progress on some fronts, but I'm
very disappointed that we didn't do more. It is clear that, before the
Congress gives up much of its constitutional responsibility to regulate
international commerce, much stronger safeguards must be put in place.
Labor rights protections must be a vital part of our international
trading system. These protections help to lift the standards for
workers around the world, and to help protect America's workers from
unfair foreign competition. As we work with other nations to develop
rules for the global economy, we can't create new rights for businesses
and leave workers out in the cold.
By fighting for the rights of workers in our own country and around
the world, we are representing the best values of the American people--
that an honest day's work should receive an honest day's pay that
workers deserve fairness in the workplace, fair pay and fair working
conditions, and that workers are a resource to be supported, not a
commodity to be abused.
I am very concerned this bill creates a dangerous double standard on
the rights of corporations and the rights of workers. On the one hand,
this bill directs the United States Trade Representative to encourage
our trading partners to adopt U.S. standards of intellectual property
law--the most complex and difficult patent laws to maintain and enforce
in the world--and includes even stronger language on the enforcement of
patent laws. If a trading partner fails to enforce the highest
standards of patent law, retaliation would be swift and severe. While
there is a place for intellectual property protections, especially with
the acceptance of my amendment assuring access to life-saving
medicines, the disparity with labor rights protections is astounding.
If a trading partner fails to enforce its own labor laws, this bill
clearly states that ``no retaliation may be authorized.'' It is as if
we're telling our trading partners we'll look the other way if they
provide cheap, unregulated labor for corporations.
This is the wrong time for Congress to send that message to our
trading partners. Today, workers around the world are facing
unprecedented assaults on their basic rights. In Colombia, according to
the Central Workers Union of that country, 160 trade unionists were
murdered last year and 79 trade unionists disappeared.
In many other nations around the world, workers are prevented from
meeting together freely or from joining together to form a union to
advocate for their interests. Without these fundamental rights, workers
in these nations are not truly free. We should be building a global
economy in which children have the universal opportunity for education,
rather than stolen childhoods filled with endless hours of toil for
next to nothing.
Several key amendments strengthening the labor rights and environment
protections in this agreement and enhancing trade adjustment assistance
were defeated because of overwhelming Republican opposition. Vice
President Cheney broke a tie to prevent the Congress from helping
workers displaced by trade to pay their mortgages. I'm very concerned
with the message this sends--when it comes to protecting the interest
of corporations, spare no expense. When it comes to protecting workers
or their families, cause no expense.
Too often the current trading system enriches multi-national
corporations at the expense of working families. To build a fair global
economy, all parties to trade agreements should reaffirm their
obligations and commitments under the International Labor
Organization's Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work. Unless workers around the world have basic freedoms, such as
freedom of association and the right to organize a union and bargain
collectively, free trade will not be fair trade.
At the same time that we are encouraging the growth of global trade,
we must take care of workers at home who are hurt from expanded trade.
I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have provided
trade adjustment assistance that includes essential health care
subsidies for laid-off workers who otherwise could not afford to
maintain their coverage. This assistance is a lifeline to workers who
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. We've tripled the
job training funds. We have added wage insurance for older workers who
are fortunate enough to find new jobs but forced to take a lower wage.
This assistance is long overdue and it is right to include it in this
legislation.
I am also pleased that the trade adjustment package will cover some
secondary workers, but it is unfair that downstream workers have been
excluded from this coverage. There is no good reason that workers who
produce the finished product or package articles should be ineligible
for trade adjustment assistance while workers who produce parts or work
for supplier companies are covered. Both groups of workers are hurt by
trade and need to feed their families.
Finally, this bill should have included actions to protect the health
coverage of steel retirees. An estimated 600,000 steel retirees, widows
and their families are now in jeopardy to lose their coverage because
of growing trade imbalances. For decades, the steel industry has been a
leader in the American economy. The cars we drive and the buildings we
work in would not be possible without the backbreaking work of
America's steelworkers. We must recognize the contribution of these
workers to building America. We must not let them down in their hour of
need. Hundreds of thousands of America's workers were promised decent
health care by their companies in exchange for years of service in the
workplace. The Mikulski amendment would have kept that promise, and it
was wrong for Republicans to block this worthy proposal.
Earlier in the last century, many argued that labor rights were not
the business of the national government. They were wrong. Without the
basic labor protections of the New Deal, America's workers would be
entirely at the mercy of corporations. Today, those who say that labor
rights have no place in trade agreements are just as wrong. Unless we
build a global economy that respects basic freedoms and labor rights,
we are doing an enormous disservice to workers around the world.
We had a good deal of discussion over the course of these past days
about the impact on workers at home and overseas. I will review for a
few minutes

[[Page S4770]]

the plight of some of the workers at home and what I believe would have
a much more favorable impact on their quality of life for themselves
and their children. That is the increase in minimum wage, rather than
this legislation. That is why I am strongly opposed to the legislation
and why I regret very much we were unable to get an agreement by this
body to address the issue of the increase in the minimum wage, which
would be effectively $1.50 over a 3-year period.
There was some discussion as the majority leader requested a
unanimous consent agreement that we consider this legislation by the
end of June. There was an objection made by the other side that this
was somehow an idea whose time has come and gone. I was reviewing last
evening the Republican Presidents who signed increases in the minimum
wage law. President Eisenhower signed an increase in the minimum wage
law. At that time it was not a partisan issue. It was basically, how
much should the increase in the minimum wage be? President Nixon signed
an increase in the minimum wage law. The first President Bush signed an
increase in the minimum wage law, as a number of Democratic Presidents
have, as well.
It is a time-honored issue that is not complicated. It is an issue we
have looked at in the Senate on a number of different occasions.
The fact remains, if we fail to see an increase in the minimum wage,
we will find we have slipped to virtually an all-time low in the
purchasing power of the minimum wage. That is why I strongly support
the efforts of our majority leader to ensure this body will have an
opportunity to address this issue no later than the end of July--
hopefully with the agreement of the other side; hopefully with the
support of our colleagues on the other side.
We do have several Members on the other side who will support the
increase. We should not be denied the opportunity to vote on this
issue.
As we look down the road in terms of this issue, I remind our
colleagues what we are facing in terms of the workers at the lower end
of the economic ladder.
We will, in a very short period of time--July--also be looking at
welfare reform. That raises the question about how we are going to free
people from dependency to independence. It seems to me what we have
seen from the period since the passage of the last welfare bill is if
you make work pay, you are going to get individuals who are going into
jobs. They are going to need skills, they are going to need some
training, they are going to have to have assurances that they have some
daycare for their children. They don't want to lose any health care if
they are able to receive it. But fundamentally--you have to make work
pay. That is what the minimum wage issue is really all about.
That is why its discussion now is important. As we are looking at the
trade bill, we hear a great deal about how this is going to improve the
lot of workers at the lower part of the economic ladder. I daresay this
legislation to guarantee an increase in the minimum wage will have a
great deal more positive impact on their well-being.
This chart is about ``Working Hard But Losing Ground, The Real Value
Of The Minimum Wage.'' If you were looking at where its purchasing
power would be in 1968, in today's dollars it would be $8.14. We can
see if we fail to act by next year, we will be right back to $4.70. We
have not increased it in the period of the last 6 years. Workers are
working longer. They are working harder. I will point that out in just
a moment. But these are the facts.
This chart, ``All The Gains From The Last Increase,'' shows the gains
in the last 6 years will be eaten away by inflation if we fail to act
on this.
This chart shows what is happening in the minimum wage, and its
relationship to the poverty line. As I have said many times, and as I
believe the American people have demonstrated, they believe if people
are going to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they ought to have
a livable wage. They should not have to live in poverty.
Americans understand fairness. When we look at this chart, what the
poverty line is, and look at this other line indicating where the
minimum wage is and how it has been falling, we can see individuals who
work hard are still falling further and further below the poverty line,
even though they are working, and working hard, trying to provide for
themselves and provide for their families. The increase in the minimum
wage can make a difference in the quality of life for those
individuals.
The question comes up about what has been going on in the workplace.
How about American workers? Let's look at this chart, ``Poor Parents
Working Harder Than Ever.'' This is a comparison of the total number of
hours workers are working today to what they were working 20 years ago.
Look at this chart. This is the increased number of hours per year
for workers who are in the lowest 40-percent income bracket of families
with children--the lowest 40 percent of family incomes in the country.
This shows 416 hours for all workers in the lower income level, the
lower 40 percent, with children. They are working 416 hours more now
than they were working 20 years ago; white workers are 393; Hispanic,
477; African American are 531 hours.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield for a question.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding--I want to know if the Senator
agrees with me--that 60 percent of the people who draw minimum wage are
women, and 40 percent of those women, that is the only money they get
for them and their families; is that true?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. This is a women's issue
because the great majority, 60 percent of those who receive the minimum
wage, are women. And over one-third of those women have children, so it
is a children's issue. It is quality of life for children. It is a
family issue. We hear a great many speeches around here with regard to
family issues. This is a family issue.
I remind the Senator from Nevada about what is happening out there in
the workforce. In the lower 40 percent, which includes the minimum
wage, they are working harder, longer, more than at any time in the
history of our country. It is 10 or 12 weeks, effectively--effectively
10 weeks longer than they were working 20 years ago.
Look at productivity. Let me bring this to the attention of our
colleagues. This chart shows the increase in productivity. We will hear
many of the arguments: The increase in wages ought to be related to the
increase in productivity. If that was the test, we would have an
increase in the minimum wage of much more than it is today, if it was
directly related to productivity because of the increase in
productivity of low-wage earners. But that is not where we are on this.
It should be, but we are not there.
The arguments are always made on the impact on inflation. We can
discount that.
The loss of employment, we can discount that.
But this shows what has been happening in the workforce, about
minimum wage workers increasing their productivity. Generally, we have
always thought wages ought to be somewhat related to increased
productivity. If people are going to work harder, work longer, work
more efficiently, they ought to be rewarded. That is an American value.
That is understandable.
That may apply to some workers, but it doesn't apply to minimum wage
workers. That is a matter that should be remedied and we are going to
try to remedy that with our particular proposal.
Just to get back to what is happening in terms of workers working
longer and working harder, this is a general profile. This is from the
``Families And Work Institute and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.'' I
will have printed in the Record the citations for all of this.
Workers now work more hours than workers in any industrial society--
it is about 450 hours more than any other industrial society.
One in five Americans works more than 50 hours a week. If this trend
continues, the average person will be working more than 60 hours per
week in 20 years.
Half of young workers today say that not having enough time for
family and work responsibilities is their biggest worry. These are
young workers trying to raise their families, working longer and
harder--increasing hours away from their families and children.

[[Page S4771]]

In addition to working longer hours in primary jobs, 13 percent of
Americans are working a second job to make ends meet. The second jobs
add an average of 13 hours to the work week. That is with regard to
these minimum wage earners.
These are people, our fellow Americans, men and women of great
dignity, who take pride in the jobs they are doing. All they want is
respect for the jobs they are doing, and that is related to being
compensated fairly and decently for their employment. This issue is
about respect. This is about dignity of these working families. That is
what this issue is all about.

This chart indicates that job growth continues even after the minimum
wage is increased. We have heard these arguments. Let's look at what
has happened to the increased minimum wage and what has happened to
employment. This goes back to October 1996. This is just the jump in
the minimum wage. The first increase was 50 cents. Then in 1997 it was
40 cents. You see the lines indicating the total number of Americans
who are employed continues to increase. This is a false argument that
suddenly we are going to lose jobs.
I want to bring this matter to the attention of our colleagues.
Increasing the minimum wage by $1.50 is vital to the workers but a drop
in the bucket of the national payroll.
Look at this: Americans earn $5.4 trillion a year. A $1.50 minimum
wage increase would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the national
payroll.
We will hear all the argument that this is enormously inflationary,
that it will have a disruptive effect in terms of the economy. It is
one-fifth of 1 percent of the national payroll for these workers. But
it is vitally important to these individuals who are receiving it
because it makes all the difference in the world in terms of their
quality of life.
I want to show what our proposed minimum wage is really all about. It
is at a historic low. We have a proposal that will be phased in over a
3-year period--60 cents this year, 50 cents in 2003, and 40 cents for
2004.
Let us look at the proposal in relationship to the increases we have
had since 1956. As this chart shows, this is a very modest increase in
terms of the increases in the minimum wage.
All we are trying to do is restore the purchasing power for working
families who receive the minimum wage back to where we were 6 years
ago. It is very modest. At that time, it finally passed overwhelmingly
here in the Senate after we had been debating it for about 2 years. But
it finally passed at that time.
Our proposal is an extremely modest one. As I pointed out yesterday,
it makes an enormous difference in terms of the lives of the people who
are receiving this.
When the $1.50 is totally phased in, it will amount to $3,000 for a
minimum wage family. It is the equivalent of 15 months of groceries,
over 8 months of rent, over 7 months of utilities, and full tuition for
a community college degree.
That may not sound like a lot to Members of the Senate. It certainly
doesn't sound like a lot for those individuals receiving this
extraordinary tax break with the bill we passed, or who will be
benefiting from the $600 billion the President is requesting of the
Congress even at this time in terms of the future. But it makes an
enormous difference to those working families.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. REID. I listened to the Senator speak yesterday, and I heard one
of the Senators on the other side of the aisle ask, Why doesn't the
marketplace control this? Why don't we make it $1 million an hour?
Does the Senator respond the same way I do, that if the marketplace
controlled, there would be people making less money than the minimum
wage today?
My father worked before labor unions were of any power in this
country. I can remember him telling me he would go to a mine that was
hiring. He would hear they were hiring. People were working for nothing
basically. There would be a labor boss. The men would be standing there
wanting a job. ``I will take you. I will take you. And I will take
you.''
The marketplace really doesn't take care of the American worker. Will
the Senator agree with me?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. We are talking about
entry-level jobs. As I pointed out, it is primarily women who are in
the market, maybe having a family and exiting the market, and trying to
come in and provide for their family. They work hard. When we think
about who these individuals are making the minimum wage, they are
teacher's aides in the classrooms. We passed the Leave No Child behind
legislation.
We are giving this focus and attention. We have a difference with the
administration on funding levels of that legislation. We think we need
to invest in our children as a national priority. But the fact is, when
you have children in that classroom--this is related as well to what is
going on in the classroom--it is not only about having a well-qualified
teacher, but also it is about teacher's aides. Teacher's aides are the
ones receiving the minimum wage.
Men and women who work in nursing homes look after parents who fought
in our world wars and lifted the country out of the Depression--the
great heroes of our time. You will find more often than not that people
working in those nursing homes are working for minimum wage. These are
people who are caring and, as I mentioned, have a sense of pride. They
are the people who clean the buildings so American enterprise can
flourish in the daytime. They take tough, gritty jobs at nighttime in
order to provide for their families. They are jobs in which men and
women take a great deal of pride. They should be treated with respect
and with dignity.
Let me point this out as a final chart. Speaker Dennis Hastert
couldn't have said it any clearer on June 8 when he said:

Lawmakers ought to be able to keep up with the cost of
living so they can take care of their families and provide
for their families like everybody else does. I think that's
the decent thing to do.

So do I. That is what this minimum wage is all about.
Dennis Hastert has the right idea. Let us be able to provide an
increase in the minimum wage so people can deal with the cost of living
which is eating away the increase we passed 6 years ago so the parents
can take care of their families and provide for them as everyone else
does. That is the decent thing to do.

That is what this issue is about. It is, as I said before, a women's
issue, a children's issue, a civil rights issue, but most of all a
fairness issue. Americans understand fairness. They understand that
people working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, and even longer
now, for the minimum wage ought not to have to live in poverty. Their
children should not have to live in poverty. This country is a country
of fairness and decency and justice. This is a defining issue, I
believe, about economic justice in this country.
Mr. REID. The Speaker of the House of Representatives approximately a
year ago was not talking about minimum wage workers. He was talking
about Members of Congress. Is that right?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. What the Senator is saying is that if Members of Congress
are entitled to a cost-of-living increase, shouldn't the minimum wage
worker be entitled to a cost-of-living increase?
Mr. KENNEDY. I do not know how you would answer that if you voted no
in terms of the increase on this minimum wage, particularly since we
have had four increases for Members of Congress since the last increase
in the minimum wage. They were accepted by the membership. Why would we
begrudge nearly 9 million hard-working Americans across this country
who are working hard to provide for their families their opportunity to
take care of their families as Members of Congress do with theirs?
This is an issue we are going to talk about during the course of
these next few weeks. We welcome the opportunity to debate it. We
welcome the opportunity to vote on it. I am enormously grateful to the
leadership, Senator Daschle and Senator Reid, for their strong
commitment in this undertaking, and our colleagues. We look forward to
that debate and discussion at an early time.

[[Page S4772]]

I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield any time he has
remaining?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I yield such time as remains to the Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no Republican seeking
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will make arrangements with Senator
Snowe, who wishes to speak. She has time. The Republicans want her to
use it; and we want her to use it, too. But in the meantime, we have
Senator Kennedy here.
I ask we go to the next matter, which is, by virtue of the unanimous
consent agreement, now before us.

____________________