WASHINGTON / CATHERINE COLLINS : Riegle Tries to Put the Fast-Track U.S.-Mexico Trade Bill on Slower Path

Responding to concerns raised by labor and environmental groups, Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich) is trying to put the brakes on fast tracking for a U.S.-Mexico free-trade agreement.

The Senate Banking Committee chairman’s bill would allow Congress to amend any agreement in five key areas: fair labor standards, environmental protection, “rule of origin” provisions that prevent other nations from using Mexico to funnel cheap goods into the United States, displaced worker assistance and ways for U.S. manufacturers to settle disputes with Mexican firms.

“Fast track” is a parliamentary procedure that speeds up the negotiation process by allowing Congress only a single, yes-or-no vote on the final agreement, with debate limited to 20 hours. Bush asked Congress last fall to authorize the procedure for a Mexican trade deal.

At the same time the trade talks are coming under scrutiny, fast tracking is up for reauthorization by Congress. It will be automatically extended for two years unless either the House or Senate votes against renewal by June 1.

Last Wednesday, Bush proposed some concessions on worker assistance and environmental protection, but Riegle wasn’t satisfied. Riegle said his bill (S.109) would permit the President modified fast-track negotiations, but under a much tighter rein from Congress.

“Mexico is too poor to buy most of our products but is often willing to sacrifice its environment and worker safety to lure U.S. companies with low wage rates,” said Riegle. “I am determined to see that this agreement doesn’t become a jobs-for-Mexico pact that will cost Michigan thousands of good-paying jobs.” Other congressmen have expressed similar worries about the fate of jobs in their districts.

Big business, as expected, opposes the Riegle bill. Labor and environmental groups are not handing out any hosannas either. Instead, the latter two sectors support a bill (S.636) introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) that would eliminate completely fast track for trade agreements with Mexico and Uruguay.

A Push for More Safety at Construction Sites

It is a matter of trying to balance two perfectly good causes--in this case, work-site safety and affordable housing.

“Almost 15% of the 5 million full-time construction workers, some 750,000 men and women, can expect to be injured on the job each year,” said Rep. Joseph M. Gaydos (D-Pa.). The National Workplace Safety Institute says such accidents will lead to 2,500 deaths and 200,000 disabling injuries.

In an effort to reduce those statistics, Gaydos and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) are sponsoring companion bills, titled the Construction Safety, Health and Education Improvement Act. The bills (H.R. 1063 and S. 673) would amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to create an Office of Construction Safety, Health and Education within OSHA.

The measures would also require the appointment of on-site safety specialists and require construction employers to establish safety and health programs. Inspection investigations and record-keeping at construction sites also would be increased.

However, the housing industry opposes the measures for reasons it says are unrelated to safety.

“While the National Assn. of Home Builders supports the general intent of the bill in protecting the health and safety of men and women employed in the construction industry,” said Ira Norris, a California home builder, “these requirements would prove so costly and burdensome for the majority of home builders that the bill would severely impede their ability to provide quality affordable housing.”

The new requirements would add 25% to labor costs on a single-family home, estimated Norris. That translates into $2,800 for the average single-family home and would add $25 to the average monthly rental bill.

But Jim Lapping, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO, said the union’s studies of similar safety requirements show quite the opposite. Not only would tougher measures reduce injuries and deaths from 25% to 50%, he said, they will save 2% to 5% of the total cost of a project by reducing the threat of lost worker hours and workers’ compensation payments. When you figure that contractors only bid for a 2% profit, those are big potential savings.

“This bill will not cost taxpayers any money, but reallocate the money already being spent,” maintained Lapping. “It will make the program more effective.”

Bill Aims to Provide Break to Consumers

A piece of Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum’s consumer agenda, the Consumer Protection Against Price Fixing Act (S.429), may be voted on as early as Monday.

The measure is intended to end “resale price maintenance,” which occurs when suppliers refuse to sell goods to discount retailers as a result of pressure from higher-priced stores.

Sara Nichols, a staff attorney with the Congress Watch project of Public Citizen here, says this is one piece of legislation that puts money directly in the consumer’s pocket without adding to the federal deficit. “Unless this bill is passed, the consumer will get stuck with a bill for $20 billion in full-priced goods,” said Nichols.

Family Leave Bill Heads to Full Senate

The Family and Medical Leave Bill has cleared another hurdle. In a 12-5 vote, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee sent the measure to the full Senate.

All 10 Democrats were joined by Republicans James Jeffords (Vt.) and Dan Coats (Ind.) in voting for the measure. The House Education and Labor Committee approved a similar bill last month.

The legislation, which has garnered strong backing from women’s and labor groups, appears headed for another confrontation with the Bush Administration, which opposes the concept as too expensive for employers.

The bill would require employers to offer workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually to care for a newborn or adopted child, or a sick child, spouse or relative. Employers with fewer than 50 workers would be exempt from the family-leave requirement.

In advocating the measure, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, cited a recent controversial study that found that the cost of firing a worker who wants to leave is much higher than the cost of granting the leave and training a new employee.