[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4824-S4827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE OMNIBUS TRADE BILL

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to first of all apologize to the 
Presiding Officer and others for taking a few extra minutes in what has 
been a long day and evening for all of us here. But I wanted to take a 
few minutes to close business in the Senate today and express my views 
on the final passage of H.R. 3009, the Trade Promotion Authority bill.
  My friend and colleague, the Presiding Officer, will appreciate the 
reasons when I get through with these remarks. I normally submit my 
statement and have it included in the Record. But I wanted to take a 
few minutes and express my thoughts publicly.
  I rise this evening to talk about the omnibus trade bill the Senate 
just voted in favor of on final passage.
  The bill which was before us granted the President with what is 
called fast-track trade authority. The bill we just voted on has a 
fundamental flaw, in my view. Unfortunately, it lacks the minimum 
protections of environmental labor standards by countries that seek 
enhanced trade relationships with the United States. Senate passage of 
this bill will signal reverse progress made

[[Page S4825]]

over the past decade to ensure that free trade does not come at the 
expense of American workers and American principles.
  Let me also quickly add that this is the first trade agreement, with 
the exception of one 14 years ago, I ever voted against. I am a strong 
supporter of trade agreements. I had hoped very sincerely to vote for 
this one because I believe it is critical to portray the well-being of 
our own Nation for the promotion of democracy and enhancement of 
economic opportunities for others around the globe. I tried as hard as 
I could to find my way to vote for this particular bill, but I just 
could not at the end of the day.

  Fast-track authority, as we all know, eases the way for American 
Presidents to be able to negotiate international trade agreements by 
limiting congressional approval with just an up-or-down vote, and with 
no amendments on trade accords that come before the U.S. Congress. This 
makes it much easier for Presidents to be able to negotiate agreements, 
and then let the Congress just have one vote--yes or no.
  I have understood the value of that in times past. But that value and 
that agreement to allow Presidents, regardless of party, to be able to 
do that, has always been contingent on certain objectives that an 
American President and his negotiating team would have to pursue which 
we felt strongly about as a people, and very much wanted to see as part 
of any negotiations not just for our own citizenry but values and 
principles which we believe are inherent in the right of all people 
endowed by their creator with those rights.
  Unfortunately, as a result of what happened here over the past number 
of days, I think we took a step backwards and not forwards in the 
evolving process of objectives of a free, open and democratic society 
that tries to enhance those common values for others with whom we 
negotiate.
  Although Congress has continuously granted Presidential fast-track 
authority between 1974 and 1994, it has refused to renew that authority 
since then. The reason for this change of heart was simple: There were 
many in Congress who believed that a policy of unfettered trade with 
countries with weak or nonexistent labor standards, environmental 
standards, and the like were putting U.S. companies at a competitive 
disadvantage--costing American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs 
and pressuring the United States to lower our own workers' health and 
safety standards. Instead of lowering our standards, our trading 
partners should be raising theirs.
  President Bush contends that America has missed out on portrayed 
opportunities due to the lack of fast-track authority. I contend quite 
the opposite is true.
  Since 1994, the United States has become a party to nearly 200 trade 
agreements with countries in the Caribbean Basin, which I strongly 
supported; the Sub-Saharan-African agreements; Southeast Asia; the 
Middle East; and elsewhere in the world. Far from hampering free trade, 
Congress's role in helping to craft the final language of trade 
agreements over the past 8 years developed new international norms and 
protected people's rights across the globe with whom we have entered 
into those agreements.
  The most recent of these agreements--and the one which I had hoped 
would become the basis--in fact, Bob Zoellick, who is the chief trade 
negotiator, mentioned back some months ago that he wanted to use the 
United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement as the model for this fast-
track authority. All of us here unanimously voted for the United 
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.
  I can't tell you how enthused I was when Bob Zoellick made those 
remarks. I thought this administration understood the evolutionary 
process of trade agreements.
  The Jordan-United States Free Trade Agreement was, in my view, the 
best free trade agreement we had negotiated, and should have been the 
standard by which all future trade agreements would be judged. But 
unlike previous trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade 
Agreement--which I strongly supported, along with the Presiding 
Officer; and the Jordan FTA--the Jordan FTA actually includes 
provisions safeguarding minimum labor standards in the main text of the 
agreement, and it permits sanctions should our trade partner fail to 
comply with their own labor laws in order to gain an advantage over us 
in trade.

  The Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed 100 to zero in this body. It 
was unanimously supported by every single Member only a few months ago.
  With Congress poised to renew Presidential fast-track authority, it 
is now, it seems to me, more important than ever that the President's 
freedom to negotiate free trade agreements operate within a framework 
that upholds universally recognized labor standards. Because the Jordan 
language provides such a framework, there was a great deal of 
optimism--myself included--that the Jordan standards would be strongly 
included in the legislation renewing fast-track authority. That was the 
evolutionary process.
  However, the fast track bill that passed the House and the one that 
just passed this body does not include Jordan standards, and the Senate 
version, although going a little further, also fails to obtain the 
Jordan language. An amendment that I offered requiring new fast-track 
authority to be in parity with the Jordan standards was voted down by a 
vote of 52 to 46.
  That would mean that the fast track bill that goes to the President 
now will not prevent our trading partners from violating domestic labor 
laws in their own country to gain a competitive advantage over American 
workers and businesses, which was one of the major provisions of the 
Jordan FTA. Nor, as it is currently drafted, does the trade bill 
require countries with whom we trade to strive--to strive; that is all 
it is as an objective--to meet the standards of the International Labor 
Organization's declaration of workers' rights.
  There are 27 pages of negotiating objectives covering every 
imaginable issue that the Finance Committee saw in its wisdom to 
include, such items involving insurance, and e-commerce, technology, 
and the like. None of those objectives are absolutely required to be in 
every agreement. We merely state that trading negotiators should have 
them as their objectives to try and pursue during those negotiations.
  I found it rather stunning that the members of this Senate with the 
support of the administration could not agree to take the exact 
language out of an agreement that had passed 100 to zero, in the year 
2001, and include it as part of the objectives of the fast-track 
authority dealing with labor rights. To not do this was a major 
setback, and it raises too many concerns in my own mind about whether 
or not this administration or successor administrations would pursue 
those values and ideals which we have so strongly made a part of our 
own society and pursued as trying to be included in the rights of 
others around the globe, that I felt I had no other choice, at the end, 
but to vote against this bill.
  Since neither the House bill nor the Senate bill includes the Jordan 
labor standards or something comparable, the President may not be in a 
position to prevent our trading partners from violating domestic laws 
in their own country to gain a competitive advantage over American 
workers and businesses. Nor, as it is currently drafted, does the bill 
require countries with whom we trade, as I said, to strive to meet the 
standards of the ILO. This means our trading partners may fail to 
prohibit child labor or forced labor if no such domestic laws exist.

  That was part of the language in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement that 
is missing from this bill: abolish child labor, eliminate 
discrimination--these are basic labor rights. To be turned away, after 
we already agreed to an agreement back only some months ago in the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, I found rather remarkable; that is, that 
we would not accept those as negotiating objectives--not requirements, 
but objectives--in the 27 pages that included everything else you could 
possibly imagine. But abolish child labor, eliminate discrimination, 
again these are basic rights.
  I saw that as a step backwards. We have entered the 21st century, we 
ought to try to pursue at least those rights and raise them with people 
who want access to our markets, I found that terribly disheartening.
  Instead of including provisions to protect not only hardworking 
Americans but hardworking people around

[[Page S4826]]

the globe, and improve conditions with nations who want access to our 
markets, the Senate, in my view, seems to be content to continue 
increasing the amount of trade adjustment assistance paid to hundreds 
of thousands of American workers who lost jobs due to trade agreements 
with countries that disregard their workers' rights. While this 
assistance is desperately needed by working families hardest hit by 
trade agreements, it is not a long-term solution, and it certainly is 
not a trade policy.
  I am all for providing trade adjustment assistance. But it almost 
seems like raising a white flag in many ways in terms of what happens 
in our own country, so that all I can do is go back home to my own 
constituency and say: Don't worry; if you lose your job, I am going to 
see to it you get some assistance in the process.
  I am glad we are doing it, but in a way it is an abdication, in my 
view, of what we ought to be doing when it comes to workers' rights 
here and workers' rights around the globe.
  As I said a while ago, I have long supported efforts to promote free 
trade for the simple reasons that trade opens markets for American 
goods and services, and trade allows us to compete globally, which is 
generally good for American businesses and workers.
  Over the years, I have supported virtually every one of these 
agreements. So I am saddened, as I stand here this evening, that I was 
compelled, as a result of what was excluded from this bill, to vote 
against this trade promotion authority.
  But I feel very strongly that in order for trade to be a vehicle for 
improving the lives of men and women in this country--for it truly to 
be a ``rising tide that lifts all boats''--trade agreements must uphold 
international standards that the United States has long supported in 
the areas of labor and the environment. I remain unconvinced that the 
Bush administration is committed to including such standards, absent 
Congressional action in these areas. That is why I voted against the 
renewal of Presidential fast-track authority, despite my support for 
similar authority in the past.
  I do not dispute that there are many important provisions in this 
bill. I have strongly supported the renewal of the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, which, again, I know the Presiding Officer has fought 
for very, very hard over the years. He and I have spent a lot of time 
talking about how to move that forward. It saddens me deeply that I am 
thrown into the position, because of what happened here, to have a vote 
cast against an agreement that I think is extremely important. But I am 
quite confident had the Andean Trade Preference Act been a freestanding 
proposal here, an overwhelming majority of Members would have supported 
it, and that act would have become law in its own right.

  That act, of course, expired last December because Congress failed 
the act. I wish we had done the Andean Trade Agreement as a 
freestanding bill because it has broad-based support that would benefit 
both the United States and the Andean nations who are participants in 
the agreement.
  My vote against the underlying bill should not be interpreted as any 
opposition, whatsoever, to the Andean agreement. I will speak 
separately about that agreement. In fact, I have added some remarks for 
the Record to be printed prior to the adoption of the bill this evening 
specifically talking about the Andean Trade Agreement.
  Were the Andean agreement the only issue we were being asked to vote 
on today, my decision with respect to how to vote would be an easy one. 
I would have voted overwhelmingly, strongly for that bill.
  Unfortunately, there is a lot more in this bill than the renewal and 
expansion of ATPA. There are also a number of important provisions that 
have been excluded from the bill. I believe that the adoption of the 
Dayton-Craig amendment allays some concerns that I had; namely, that 
the Bush administration was prepared to jettison U.S. trade laws 
designed to protect U.S. companies and workers against unfair trade 
competition. I believe that the Senate has put the administration on 
notice that this is unacceptable. And it remains to be seen what will 
happen to this provision during conference.
  The Senate began consideration of trade legislation on April 29, and 
there have been more than 18 rollcall votes on amendments offered by 
myself and other colleagues of ours in this Chamber. Many of these 
amendments were crafted in order to ensure that there are sufficient 
safeguards to ensure that working men and women in our own country will 
not be adversely affected by future trade agreements.
  By and large, the Republican Members of this body have voted in 
lockstep against these amendments, regardless of their merits. I think 
that strategy was extremely unwise because it sends the wrong signal to 
U.S. negotiators and to foreign governments with whom we will be 
shortly entering into negotiations.
  The bill's provisions related to negotiating objectives with respect 
to labor and environmental matters, human rights, and the like, are 
inadequate, in my view.
  I would like to think we have finally reached common ground with 
respect to the importance of including enforceable labor and 
environmental provisions in trade agreements. Trade agreements can no 
longer just be about investments, tariffs and duties. Trade agreements 
must also include provisions that ensure that the environment and 
workers' rights will also be protected. I see no reason we should not 
want to take steps to make sure that such trade agreements include 
language which would encourage countries to improve their labor laws so 
that someday we will see child labor abolished and discrimination 
eliminated.
  Unfortunately, last week this body took a step back from the progress 
we made in the latter part of the 20th century, when it comes to trade 
agreements, when the two workers' rights amendments that both Senator 
Lieberman and I introduced were tabled. My amendment simply attempted 
to carry forward protections that have already been approved 
overwhelmingly in this body in the context of the United States-Jordan 
agreement.
  This was not some killer amendment. It was merely commonsense 
language already adopted unanimously by this body. The managers of this 
bill have mistakenly been saying that the bill follows the labor 
conditions contained in the Jordan agreement. My amendment would have 
made sure that these basic labor rights we have already approved once 
were fully incorporated into this bill.
  The few Jordan standards that are in the bill have been made 
meaningless by the rejection of Senator Lieberman's amendment which 
would have deleted four lines from the bill that were added by Senator 
Gramm of Texas. The Gramm language states that a party has the right to 
establish its own domestic labor standards and levels of environmental 
protection regardless of how these domestic laws may deviate from 
accepted international norms in these areas. That is the language of 
the bill now.
  If the Gramm language is retained in conference, as I suspect it will 
be, other countries can weaken their labor and environmental laws to 
gain a competitive advantage, and we will have no recourse against such 
actions. That is clearly contrary to the interests of the United States 
of America.
  I believe it is unwise that this bill has moved forward without 
language that would have ensured enforcement of worker rights and 
environmental protection in future fast-track trade agreements.
  I believe strongly that by not including these amendments, the Senate 
has reversed the bipartisan progress we made only a few months ago when 
we passed the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. I believe the 
managers of the bill will regret that they have not been more forceful 
in their directions to the Bush administration and successor 
administrations because it has shown little or no sensitivity with 
respect to these matters. The managers may have been able to get this 
legislation passed, as they have, but I will predict that if the 
administration ignores concerns expressed by myself and others on these 
subjects, they will find it extremely difficult to get congressional 
approval for future agreements that are concluded pursuant to the 
authority in this bill.
  I have no doubt that this legislation is going to survive the House-
Senate conference and will shortly become law. It will then fall to the 
administration to build minimum labor standards into future trade 
agreements. It will be

[[Page S4827]]

up to Congress to vote down agreements that fail to ensure that our 
trading partners respect and uphold workers' rights. The continued 
growth of international trade will only benefit workers in America and 
around the globe if increased trade goes hand in hand with respect for 
labor rights, protection of the environment, and a shared commitment to 
making the lives of working people around the globe better.
  I hope the administration takes note of this free traders vote today. 
They didn't need it. It wasn't necessary. The bill passed 
overwhelmingly. But I know there are many who voted for this 
legislation who did so with a great concern considering the progress we 
have made over these past number of years; then to have as an 
underlying agreement a major step backwards from the achievements we 
have accomplished as a Congress. I believe if the administration fails 
to do what it ought to do, it is likely to find more Members of this 
body who have been traditionally free traders walking away from future 
agreements that could enhance the opportunity for people in this 
country and elsewhere around the globe.
  I apologize to the Chair and members of the staff who have to listen 
to these remarks at this late hour. I wanted to be on record publicly 
about a vote I cast, I regret I had to cast, given a long, strong 
record of supporting trade agreements over the years. This bill has 
gone in the wrong direction. I could not in good conscience lend my 
name to a proposal I think will cause serious problems in the years 
ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________