Chuck Grassley: “once again, repeating what my colleague from Montana has said, this part of this legislation, not only in the Senate but…”

“once again, repeating what my colleague from Montana has said, this part of this legislation, not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives, is so carefully balanced, bringing in the labor and environmental issues, if you do something to pick up one vote on the liberal end, we lose a vote on the conservative end. I ask my colleagues to not in any way upset that balance. That is why this amendment should be defeated. The Senator from Connecticut is always a very sincere Senator on any subject. He presents his case well. This is one place where his ideas may be well for the country of Jordan, where we do $40 million a year in business, but it is not good idea when we look globally at negotiations with 142 countries. We cannot use the country of Jordan necessarily as a pattern for the whole organization. I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I think anyone who wants this President to get trade promotion authority, or trade adjustment assistance for that matter, should be too. Basically, the amendment takes the very carefully crafted House to compromise language on labor and Add-to it language negotiated by the Clinton administration in a bilateral agreement with Jordan. In my view this is not thoughtful trade policy. If this language is intended as a broad policy statement, it is unnecessary. The negotiating objectives in the bipartisan compromise already capture the key trade and labor provisions of the U.S. Jordan Free Trade Agreement.”