THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

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

[Page: S4358]  GPO's PDF

   In the area of labor, we agreed to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of children--this is very important--consistent with the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, the ILO.

   We also agreed to protect and preserve the environment and to pursue trade and environmental policies that are mutually supportive.

   Second, both countries agreed we would not lower labor or environmental standards in an effort to improve our positions on trade. That provision of the agreement has equal weight with all other provisions of the agreement--it is just as important, and it is just as enforceable.

   I want to be clear on this point. By necessity, the language in the fast-track bill is not and cannot be identical to the Jordan agreement because the Jordan agreement is limited to two countries. The fast-track bill sets the agenda for future trade agreements.

   That said, the fast-track language incorporates all of the elements of the Jordan agreement--every single one--and those who criticize the fast-track bill before us as not meeting the Jordan standard are simply inaccurate; they are not stating the case. They exaggerate the provisions of the Jordan agreement or they mischaracterize the bill.

   Let me address several of the critics' assertions.

   First, opponents criticize this bill as failing to require that countries implement core internationally recognized labor standards. That is true, the bill does not make that requirement. But the Jordan agreement does not make that requirement either. The Jordan agreement simply reaffirms obligations of each country that already exist by virtue of ILO membership, and it establishes the countries' agreement to ``strive to ensure'' that ILO standards are recognized and protected by domestic law. If a country strives but fails to actually ensure that ILO standards are reflected in domestic law, it has not violated its obligation.

   Second, opponents criticize the bill as not including the Jordan standard on enforcement. That is simply not true. The Jordan labor and environment provision that is susceptible to dispute settlement--that is, the requirement that a country not fail to effectively enforce its labor and environmental laws in a manner affecting trade as incorporated as a priority negotiating objective in the bill.

   Also, negotiators are directed to treat all principal negotiating objectives equally with respect to access to dispute settlement, as well as with respect to procedures and remedies in dispute settlement.

   Third, opponents criticize this bill because of the late addition of the so-called Gramm language. That is the Senator from Texas. They suggest this language allows countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity.

   While I am not a fan of the Gramm language, critics grossly exaggerate the effects of this language. The language states that ``no retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights''--that is, regarding countries' discretion to take certain actions--``or the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.''

   As explained in the committee report accompanying the bill, this language is simply meant to--that is the Gramm language--is meant to ``clarify the language that precedes it in subparagraph (B).

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

   In short, the language at issue does not allow countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity. It does not add to or subtract from the other provisions on labor and environment in the bill. It merely clarifies that administering authorities are to be accorded some leeway, as they are in the United States-Jordan agreement. Same, no difference.

   Finally, opponents criticize the fact that promotion of respect for worker rights is included in this bill as and ``overall trade negotiating objective'' rather than a ``principal trade negotiating objective.''

   As explained in the Finance Committee report, all of the subsections in section 2 of the bill carry equal importance in defining the trade negotiated positions of the United States.

   The report further states:

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

   Moreover, by criticizing the placement of promotion of respect for worker rights under the heading of ``overall trade negotiating objectives,'' the assertion implies that placement of the objective under the heading of ``principal trade negotiating objectives'' would somehow make it more enforceable. That is not true.

   The fact is, the ability to use dispute settlement to enforce an obligation to promote or to strive to ensure is extremely limited, regardless of the section in which it is listed. How would someone determine whether a country is promoting core labor standards or striving to ensure that those standards are reflected in domestic law?

   Clearly, this legislation would direct the administration to negotiate Jordan-like provisions as it completes negotiations with Chile and Singapore. And as it moves forward on the free trade area of the Americas, it makes Jordan the model for new negotiations with Central America, with Australia and others.

   There are also key provisions on labor and the environment added to the Senate bill that were not in the House bill. First, in addition to an environmental report, which would be codified into law, the legislation requires a new report on trading partners' labor practices. These reports should clearly identify the problems to be addressed in negotiations.

   Second, the Senate bill contains important language to ensure that new investor-State provisions, such as NAFTA chapter 11 , are transparent and accessible to the public. The bill also addresses concerns that investor-State provisions may give foreign interests more rights than U.S. investors; that is, we made sure that provision is addressed in the solution in the bill, and, particularly with the adoption of the recent Kerry amendment, strikes a balance between legitimate concerns of environmental citizen groups and

   legitimate concerns of American investors overseas.

   Foreign investors and domestic investors are treated the same way, and also municipalities are treated the same way with respect to domestic investors or foreign investors that may be challenging a certain environmental or municipality law under article V of the Constitution, the takings provision of the U.S. Constitution.

   Some critics have said this legislation does not go far enough on labor and the environment. Many critics, I believe, will never be satisfied. They just cannot be satisfied. They simply oppose trade. That is fine. Some will be for trade; some will be against trade. I respect that. But as we move forward on these issues, we have to be realistic. It is simply unreasonable to suggest that we can take our labor and environmental laws, that is the United States, impose them on developing countries, and slap sanctions on them if their laws do not live up to our standards in a few years. That is simply unrealistic. We simply would not be able to negotiate agreements if that were the position the United States took and those were the provisions that we had written into the underlying fast-track bill.

   We have to move forward very aggressively, and the provisions in this bill do make that aggressive step forward. We have to keep in mind that many of these countries are at a level of development that the United States was at 100 years ago. At that time, the U.S. labor and environmental laws looked much different than they do today. That is not to say we must wait a century for progress. Clearly, we should not wait a century.

   Every trade agreement must recognize that labor and environmental standards are now on the agenda. I might say that is one of the reasons that the Ministers in Seattle collapsed because the world recognized that

[Page: S4359]  GPO's PDF

   We have worked very hard with those most interested in this issue to write provisions in the Jordan agreement. That is a major step forward, and we are making those Jordan standards the core basis by which we proceed today.

   We can lock in important advances that have already been achieved. That is what we are doing with the underlying bill. We can create positive incentives for countries to raise their standards. We are doing that, too. For example, we see phase-in benefits more quickly for countries that make progress on labor and environmental issues. We can provide technical assistance to help those countries improve their practices. Importantly, we can trade more with them.

   Progress on labor and environmental standards often follows economic growth. That is certainly true of the United States. Our own country is the best example of that. Isolating developing countries will not help the United States, either. There will always be those that the fast-track bill does not do enough for, does not go far enough in protecting labor and environmental standards worldwide.

   To them, I say this bill is an enormous step forward. By definition, it is a fitting--and I say by definition because the prior bills were zero. This has a very significant provision so this is a great step forward. It is far stronger on these issues than any previous grant of fast track. It is far stronger than the fast-track bills considered by the House and Senate only a few short years ago.

   So can we not do more on these issues? Absolutely. And I will continue mightily to work to make improvements. That is a process that is likely to continue for decades to come. We will continue to work and make progress with each passing couple of years on labor and environmental provisions.

   At the end of the day, I believe there is something in this bill that is very solid with respect to labor and the environment. It is a wonderful first step forward, and I believe those who are truly for trade worked hard to pass this comprehensive trade bill because, if they vote against this bill, then we are back to where we were before, that is, no meaningful labor and environmental standards as we have worked for in fast track.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we are getting set under the unanimous consent agreement before the Senate to take up a Lieberman amendment, I will speak about what we have in the bill on workers' rights and how we deal therewith.

   The Trade Promotion Authority Act is a bipartisan bill that Senator Baucus and I have brought to the floor which contains the most comprehensive set of objectives on workers' rights and core International Labor Organization labor standards that have ever been included in any U.S. trade law dealing with international trade negotiations.

   Respect for workers' rights consistent with core International Labor Organization standards is a clearly stated U.S. trade objective.

   The President, in his contract with Congress, does our negotiating for us, since we cannot have 535 Members negotiating with 142 other countries. We have this contract with the President to do it. We direct the President through this contract, which is this bill we are considering, to seek greater cooperation between the International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization.

   Furthermore, the President is directed to strengthen the capacity of foreign governments to achieve core labor standards. The Department of Labor will offer technical assistance to these foreign governments. The President will seek a commitment by other governments to effectively enforce labor laws. The labor provisions will encourage countries to improve their labor laws without infringing on their sovereignty.

   The labor negotiating objectives capture the key trade and labor provisions we have had before this Senate previously in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed last summer.

   Our contract with the President to negotiate for us contains the strongest labor positions our Government has ever taken regarding bargaining in the history of World Trade Organization negotiations over the last 25 years.

   For the first time, U.S. trade law will include environment as a U.S. trade negotiating objective. The environmental provisions will encourage countries to improve their labor laws without infringing upon their sovereignty. Our President, through these directions, is to promote multilateral environmental agreements and consult with parties regarding consistency of such agreements with World Trade Organization rules. This addresses the widespread concern legitimately expressed that trade rules should not interfere with U.S. environmental treaties. This bill includes a requirement to conduct environmental reviews of future trade and investment agreements.

   This is where we are. The bill before the Senate provides this contract for the President to negotiate with these other countries for us. And by the way, it is something we must pass by majority vote once it is done or it never becomes law. In this contract we have the strongest labor and environmental provisions ever.

   The Senator from Connecticut will come to the floor and these will be under attack. He will try to amend these very strong provisions we have in this legislation

   because somehow the strongest provisions ever on labor and on environment, on trade legislation, are not good enough.

   These are very much a very delicate compromise--issues that have been worked out between Republicans and Democrats, not just in this body but also in the other body. As you can tell, that was a very tenuous sort of agreement that you don't want to mess with so much because it only passed by a 1-vote margin, 215 to 214.

   So when we have this sort of bipartisan approach on these very critical but sensitive issues such as labor and environment, we want to make sure we do not upset that. It is my view, as you will hear later on in debate when we get to the specifics of the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. LIEBERMAN, that his amendments will upset this very carefully crafted bipartisan agreement.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

   Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the present regular order?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is under a unanimous consent agreement under which the next amendment to be considered will be the Lieberman amendment, followed by a vote on the Edwards amendment at 1:45.

   Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a section of the trade adjustment language in this bill. I congratulate the managers for the hard work they put into bringing this bill forward. Trade adjustment is part of the three basic bills. There are four bills altogether, but I now address the three bills--the Andean trade bill, trade promotion authority, and trade adjustment.

   The trade adjustment language in this bill has some huge problems and sets off on a new policy course in a number of areas which I believe are extremely problematic and inappropriate. One of the issues it raises is that of how you deal with people who do not have health insurance. I do not want to speak specifically to that, but I want to allude to that. In this bill there is a brand new major entitlement which will say if you are put out of work, allegedly because of a trade event, you will have the right to get health insurance and have that health insurance paid for by the taxpayers, or 70 percent of it.

[Page: S4360]  GPO's PDF

   That will create the anomalous situation, the really terrible situation that people who are working for a living, working hard, working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, and who do not have health insurance, will end up paying an increased tax burden to pay to subsidize the health insurance of somebody who

   does not have a job, is not working, and who is already getting significant unemployment benefits, training benefits, education benefits, and now will be getting very significant new health insurance benefits.

   The practical implications are significant, obviously. You are going to create two classes of citizenry in this country, one of which is the working American who does not have health insurance and the other is the nonworking American who does have health insurance. The person who is working is going to be scratching his head and saying: What am I doing? Why am I toiling all these hours to pay for something I cannot afford for myself for somebody who doesn't have a job and who may not get a job because they are getting such good benefits that getting a job they may lose those benefits? So it creates some serious problems.

   Basically, it is opening the door to a massive expansion of an entitlement program in the area of health care. That worries me a lot. If we are going down that road, we should do it in the context of comprehensive health care reform. We should look at all the people who do not have health insurance in this country, not just a slice of people, and make sure all those folks get a fair shot at health insurance, not just a small slice.

   But the more problematic, from the standpoint of policy, is this new concept called wage insurance, which is in the trade adjustment bill. Basically, we are going to pay people to work less productively is what this amounts to. This is sort of a French system of economics. We are going to say to someone: If you are out of a job because of a trade adjustment situation and you take another job where you earn less, the Federal Government will now come in and pay you the difference between what you made in the old job and what you make in the new job, up to $5,000. That creates a huge incentive for people to take a job where they are less productive, to take a job that they might enjoy more, which they might like more but which doesn't pay as much because everybody else in the country is going to pay them something to take that job.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display