ACLD Minutes, October 4, 2001Advisory Committee on Labor Diplomacy Minutes
II. Public Access: The meeting was open to the public. III. Public Participation: No members of the public submitted oral or written statements to the Committee. IV. Reports Received by the Committee: The Committee received no reports. V. Matters Discussed at the Meeting Chairman Thomas Donahue called the meeting to order at approximately 09:00 a.m. and called for a moment of silence in honor of the victims of terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Mr. Donahue continued the meeting by recognizing the absence of Committee members Jack Joyce and Frank Doyle. He then invited Linda Chavez-Thompson to make a statement. Ms. Chavez-Thompson stated that in regard to the events of September 11, unions around the globe continue to send supportive messages. She pointed out that over 1000 of the over 6000 persons missing and presumed dead were union members. Ms. Chavez-Thompson reported a number of gestures of solidarity from unions around the world: the British Trade Union Council ended its Annual Conference early; trade unions in Austria and Germany held a moment of silence on September 13; the Palestinian Trade Union Federation called the attack "an action against humanity and peace." Ms. Chavez-Thompson described the economic impact of the event, stating that 108,000 jobs had been lost in NYC alone. Over $6.7 billion in wages and $16.9 billion in output was lost. The AFL-CIO noted job losses by sector: 130,000 in transportation, 48,000 in hospitality and tourism, and 98,000 in manufacturing. Mr. Donahue discussed plans for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee, pointing out that only 12 weeks remain until the expiration of the Committee’s charter. He suggested a meeting in early November. Mr. Donahue then invited Mr. Freeman to discuss the work of the democracy and development sub-group. Mr. Freeman began by mentioning that he had enjoyed the work of the sub-group, whose task was to examine interagency coordination on labor issues in the context of democracy and development. He stressed that one could not discuss coordination without reference to policy, and therefore policy was discussed at a number of meetings (almost all of which were held before September 11), for example, on the place of labor issues in both economic and political policy initiatives. Mr. Freeman said that at present, there were no significant changes in labor-related programs between the current and previous Administrations either because of the lack of new mandate or a lack of focus on the part of the current Administration. Therefore, most of the suggestions to be contemplated are technical in nature. Discussion is needed as to what kind of a report should be drafted. Mr. Freeman suggested that like the first report, a report on the interagency process should discuss the policy context for interagency labor issues, including reference to democracy, development, and trade issues. Since September 11, labor’s role in international security should also be included. Following this discussion, the report should include specific recommendations. Mr. Freeman observed that interagency coordination is a sensitive issue for a number of reasons. For example, if the objective of U.S. foreign policy is to promote free and democratic trade unions, then programs to meet that objective must respect trade union independence and autonomy. For its part, through its fourteen meetings, the democracy and development subgroup examined questions of how to tighten up coordination mechanisms among government agencies and also between government agencies and the international financial institutions (the subgroup has met with the World Bank though not the IMF) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). Mr. Freeman suggested that examining labor issues in the context of UN agencies, the OAS, the OECD, may not be realistic given time constraints. With that overview, Mr. Freeman raised a number of areas for discussion. The first area for examination in terms of democracy-promotion is the Department of State’s policy planning process, which includes the Mission Performance Plans (MPPs) and the Bureau Performance Plans (BPPs). Mr. Freeman stated that the MPPs and BPPs are the mechanisms to link policy strategies and programs, but that in fact, little coordination exists. In terms of democracy promotion programs, though there is some connection between the upper level policy decisions and the programs in the field, much de facto policy-making is done below the strategic level. Mr. Freeman recommended the book Finding Democracy Abroad by Thomas Carruthers for an insight into USAID democracy-promotion philosophy. Mr. Freeman suggested three possible levels of interagency coordination. The first possible level was at the White House (NSC) level, where both a political security and an economic security channel exist. Mr. Freeman raised the question as to whether one channel, both, or neither would most appropriately address labor issues. Mr. Freeman described a second level of consultation at the agency working level. He noted a plethora of labor programs in a number of agencies and the existence of consultation among working-level officials. Mr. Freeman raised the issue as to whether that informal consultation is adequate to ensure that worker rights issues are addressed. Issues of autonomy in program implementation must be balanced with the need to avoid duplication among relevant agencies. For the third level, Mr. Freeman stated that he hoped the appointment of Thomas Morehead as Deputy Undersecretary for International Labor Affairs would help address the Department of Labor’s lack of attention to international labor issues. Mr. Freeman also requested clarification on the status of the 22 labor-related positions requested in the FY ’01 budget (which included five at the Department of State, the rest at the Department of Labor). Approaching the coordination issue from the agency perspective, Mr. Freeman stated that there are a number of recommendations to consider for USAID, including ensuring that USAID provides more instruction on labor issues to its staff. Mr. Freeman said that representatives of USAID insist that information dissemination on labor issues is already occurring. In terms of the Department of State, Mr. Freeman inquired as to the status of the five labor positions. He also observed that the Office of International Labor Affairs does not seems as well integrated into the functions of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) as do other DRL offices. Mr. Freeman added that this lack of integration has persisted over many years. On the ILO, Mr. Freeman stressed the need to increase the rate of ratification of ILO conventions, because the U.S. promotes itself as a leader in the area of worker rights. While ratification is not a sufficient condition for demonstrating worker right bona fides, the USG’s lack of ratification of conventions is often used by those governments who oppose worker rights as pretext for not improving the situation of their workers. Mr. Freeman also suggested that the almost total ignorance of the ILO in the U.S. has to be addressed. For the World Bank, Mr. Freeman suggested more coordination among the agencies involved in World Bank matters. He estimated that labor officials in the World Bank would welcome recommendations that increased their resources and capacity. Mr. Donahue observed that the problem of matching strategic priorities to program budgeting was not unique to the government. He wondered whether the mismatch within the State Department would be addressed by a maturing of the MPP/BPP process or that the process itself was inherently inadequate. As an example of the need for interagency coordination, Mr. Freeman noted that the list of forty priority countries for democracy development created by the now defunct DRL Office of Democracy Promotion was never coordinated with the USAID’s Center for Democracy and Governance. He mentioned the existence of a Policy Coordination Committee on democracy and human rights under the leadership of Elliott Abrams of the NSC, but was unsure of whether it addressed labor issues. DRL Assistant Secretary is the chairman of a subcommittee on democracy. Ms. Polaski pointed out that the establishment of PCCs illustrates that the White House has been examining a number of issues in a variety of ways. She also noted that the Office of Democracy Promotion has been integrated into the Office of the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy (PHD). Ms. Polaski explained that the list of forty countries was probably a reflection country funding priorities for the Human Rights and Democracy Fund, which is administered by DRL, and was not meant to be coordinated with USAID. In response to Mr. Donahue’s question as to whether there was a possibility for an a la carte response, Ms. Polaski stated that it was still too early to tell. Ms. Chavez-Thompson asserted that given the fact the Committee’s work should be seen as a contribution to national security, the Committee should concentrate on the issues raised in the first report. The Committee should determine how well the Department has implemented the recommendations it accepted and perhaps revisit recommendations rejected earlier. She added that though Mr. Freeman’s subgroup has done valuable work, there is some question as to the appropriateness of issuing a second report. An addendum should instead be attached to the first report. Mr. Marshall commended Mr. Freeman and Executive Secretary Eric Barboriak for disseminating information on the work of the subgroup. Mr. Marshall suggested that the commonality of the problem areas discussed could serve as a basis for the organization of a second report. He also supported Ms. Chavez-Thompson’s suggestion for an addendum to the first report given the extremely important role for labor in current circumstances. He suggested that Labor Officers are a source of valuable information about conditions on "the street." Strengthening democracy, which includes an active role for trade unions, creates barriers to terrorism and also addresses poverty issues. Mr. Marshall explained that from the meetings of the subgroup, one could discern that of the four core labor standards, freedom of association and collective bargaining were the least well-known and acceptable. He noted a great deal of resistance to the whole-hearted rights of workers, saying that many of the people with whom the subgroup met did not see the connection between workers having a voice and democracy and development. Mr. Marshall suggested that perhaps the Committee could draft a primer on labor issues. In this form, the Committee could emphasize that sound economic policies include worker rights. The substance of the primer could also address the tendency of international organizations such as the World Bank and World Trade Organization to be less than "labor-friendly." In addition, it was clear that in many organizations there are disconnects between the top management and the field level. A primer would help draw the connections between the strategic objectives and the programs in the field by pointing out the political and economic import of labor issues. In the post-September 11 environment, there is a sense that more government rather than less is needed. The primer should make a case for increasing the profile of labor issues in that context. Mr. Donahue pointed out that Mr. Freeman’s subgroup had explored subjects in great detail in order to get a clear picture of how the interagency process works. From that detailed examination, some overarching themes are apparent. Mr. Donahue agreed that lack of coordination between policy goals and programs exists in the USG’s approach to the ILO, its rule-of-law programs, and its democracy-promotion programs. He observed that in general, labor issues are relegated to a low priority. Mr. Marshall suggested the need to make specific recommendations, for example, on the ratification of ILO conventions. Mr. Perlmutter offered some background on the current situation at the Department of Labor. DOL has focussed on a number of domestic issues, including the skills gap, disability and employment, social security, and immigration reform. The lack of a Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs resulted in less attention to international labor issues. However, with the appointment of Thomas Morehead as the new Deputy Under Secretary and the support from a number of groups, including employers, for an increase in the budget for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Mr. Perlmutter asserted that DOL will again more actively address international labor issues. Mr. Perlmutter addressed the status of the 22 labor-related positions (five in the State Department and 17 in the Department of Labor) in the FY ’01 budget by pointing out that the original legislation mandated a program to monitor labor standards. The idea of using the funding for positions came as a result of discussions between then Deputy Under Secretary Andrew Samet and the NSC. However, given that DOL had only one-year funding obligation authority and the prospect for continued funding seemed in doubt, DOL reconsidered creating these positions. Instead, through a competitive procurement, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was awarded funding to create a database for monitoring labor practices. The NAS is responsible for designing the database, including choosing appropriate indicators and developing a framework between development and human rights policies. DOL will invite USAID and other agencies to contribute to the database. Mr. Perlmutter explained that at the macro level, DOL sees a role for itself in the context of national security. For example, part of DOL will contribute to intelligence-gathering efforts by examining fundamentalism and radical movements from a labor perspective. DOL is also meeting with representatives of the Office of Veterans’ Affairs to discuss demobilization and pre/post conflict resolution programs. In response to a question about the status of the FY 2003 budget cycle, Mr. Perlmutter stated that DOL is seeking two-year obligation authority, though DOL is still waiting for OMB support for this authority. Agreeing that two-year obligation authority is important for DOL programming, Ms. Polaski confirmed that DRL’s anti-sweatshop program money falls within the Economic Support Fund category and is therefore "two-year" money. In terms of the five State Department labor officer positions, she noted that a "hold" was put on funding in the FY ’01 budget. The State Department therefore moved the positions to the FY ’02 budget, and are to be part of the 360 positions approved by Congress for the State Department. The process continues with planning at the bureau level. For DRL, the five positions make up five of the top ten priority positions requested. However, given the current stress on anti-terrorism, not much attention is being paid to these positions. In fact, it is even possible that these positions could be reallocated for other anti-terrorism-related positions. Ms. Polaski further explained that her position, Special Representative for International Labor Affairs, was also scheduled for review. She explained that Secretary Powell felt that the large number of Special Representatives and Ambassadors-at-Large had created confusing reporting and authority channels. Many of these positions were eliminated, twelve were retained, and six, including the SRILA position were to be reviewed. Under the current circumstances, it is unclear when/if that review will take place. In terms of her specific situation, Ms. Polaski mentioned that the Assistant Secretary for DRL asked her to remain through the end of the year, and she has agreed to stay. Ms. Polaski described further changes in the management of DRL. For example, a new Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) position, which is about to be filled, will have responsibility over the Office of International Labor Affairs and Office of International Religious Freedom. Previously, there had been no DAS between SRILA and the Assistant Secretary. It remains to be seen whether this will result in duplication of responsibilities and/or a more cumbersome management structure. In response to a question on the number of Labor Officer positions in the field, Ms. Polaski confirmed that number of Labor Officer positions remains constant at 49, which is up from 33 positions a few years ago. No change in this number is being considered, but the Office of International Labor Affairs is trying to get "full work/full value" out of the Labor Officers and Labor Reporting Officers (those officers not designated Labor Officers but who have labor reporting responsibilities at their respective diplomatic posts). Many Labor Officers do not spend much time on labor issues. Mr. Irons agreed that it was important for Labor Officers to spend more of their time on labor issues. He added that there was a good crop of Foreign Service Officers vying for Labor Officer positions this year. Mr. Donahue wondered whether there was even more need for labor reporting under the current circumstances. Mr. Marshall opined that emphasis of Labor Officer work depends on circumstances. He cited the work of Arthur Goldberg and the OSS, who took advantage of workers traveling the Rhine River during WW II. Even in ordinary circumstances, members of trade unions provide reliable "on the ground" information, valuable to any policy decisions. It is important for the Administration to recognize the need to diversify its source of information, and labor reporting is one of those sources. Mr. Donahue noted that this concept would be worth including in a report to the Secretary. Mr. Sweeney suggested that the Committee meet with the Secretary of Labor, and that perhaps the next Committee meeting could be held at the Department of Labor. He further suggested inviting the new Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs. Such a meeting would provide an opportunity to summarize the work of the Committee and discuss the way forward. Mr. Sweeney stated that the Committee has never had the same level of discussion with the Department of Labor as the Committee has had with the Department of State. He observed that some members of the new Administration do not understand the multi-faceted role of the labor unit within the current political and economic context. Mr. Donahue agreed that this was an idea worth pursuing. He suggested arranging a meeting with the Secretary of Labor and the Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs in early November. Mr. Sweeney suggested the meeting need not be in a formal context. Mr. Perlmutter stated that as the Deputy Under Secretary has just come on board, an informal meeting with the Committee could be in the context of his initial Department of Labor/ILAB briefings. Mr. Lucy asked whether the establishment of the labor unit at the World Bank represented a serious effort by the World Bank to address worker rights issues. Mr. Freeman responded that the labor unit has only five staff members. He compared the structure of the World Bank to his perception of the State Department: the regional offices or sections carried more authority than the functional sections. The labor unit at the World Bank lacks adequate resources to have a widespread effect. In that regard, the Committee might formally recommend more resources for the labor unit. Ms. Shailor reinforced Mr. Freeman’s perspective, pointing out that the World Bank had limited staff dealing with economic issues who understood the economic benefits of the right to organize. In contrast, in the AFL-CIO’s meeting with James Wolfensohn, it was evident that World Bank management understood the economic argument against child labor, forced labor, and discrimination. However, it will be up to the World Bank board to address the issues of collective bargaining and right of association. Ms. Shailor also mentioned a recent meeting with International Labor Organization (ILO) Director-General Juan Somovia, where the discussion centered on how to improve cohesion among the ILO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. Mr. Marshall observed that because of the USG’s frequent use of the directed mandate mechanism (in which Congress directs the US Executive Directors to vote in a certain way on a certain issue, thus removing the USED’s discretion), the USED loses some of its influence with other Board members. Germany and some of the Northern European countries have not followed through on their labor initiatives. Though World Bank President Wolfensohn seems to understand labor issues, it is a challenge to strengthen the role of the U.S. Executive Directors so that they, too, can promote labor issues. (Mr. Donahue adjourned the meeting for a short break. Upon reconvening, he welcomed Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne W. Craner to the meeting.) Assistant Secretary Craner opened the discussion by commenting on the place of human rights after the tragedies of September 11 and how labor fits into human rights issues. After expressing his satisfaction with and enthusiasm for his appointment as Assistant Secretary for DRL, Assistant Secretary Craner explained that the Department is fortunate that both the previous and the current Secretaries of State are interested in human rights issues. High-level interest in human rights did not exist even ten years ago. He observed within the State Department that an increasing number of officers who understand human rights issues are beginning to move up through the ranks. As mentioned, the Secretary of State appreciates human rights concerns as well. This leaves a swath of officers in the middle of the institution who may not have the same level of understanding of the importance of these issues. However, the Department leadership is promoting human rights in our diplomatic interactions. For example, even in the current environment, a given Ambassador may spend one third of his or her time requesting support on an issue of interest to the U.S. from a host government, and two thirds of his or her time advancing our human rights and democracy agenda. Similarly, Assistant Secretaries from different bureaus are seeking assistance from governments but also promoting democracy and human rights. Assistant Secretary Craner explained that democracy and human rights issues will always have a place in U.S. foreign policy, especially during this troubled period. The U.S. may be pursuing Osama Bin Laden now, but five or ten years in the future, the U.S. will have to deal with his "nephews" if the U.S. does not address human rights and democracy issues worldwide. Turning to labor issues, Assistant Secretary Craner stated that labor issues fit into the human rights and democracy promotion paradigm. His experience at the International Republican Institute demonstrated that to many people in developing countries, Western "democracy" means "prosperity." They reason that if they are starving, why should they support democracy? In this context, labor is part of the organic whole of human rights issues. The wave of democracy comes with the wave of globalization. The mission of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor is to work for labor standards in order to ensure that globalization does not have a negative effect on people. Assistant Secretary Craner added that the Secretary, Under Secretary Paula Dobrianksy, and he were of one mind on the importance of labor issues. Assistant Secretary Craner also mentioned that he reviewed the Advisory Committee’s first report and said some of the recommendations may be worth re-examining. He also solicited the Advisory Committee’s suggestions on the policy issues surrounding Trade promotion authority. He closed his remarks by saying that he looked forward to working with the Advisory Committee for the remainder of the term of its charter, and was strongly considering mechanisms through which the consultation with the members of the Advisory Committee could continue after December 31, 2001, the date the current charter expires. Mr. Donahue asked about the Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) on democracy in the NSC. Assistant Secretary Craner explained that genesis of the PCC was the Administration’s belief that though the USG has had the proper understanding of human rights issues, the implementation of that understanding was not adequate. One of objectives of the PCC is to review the approximately $5-700 million in USG programs that address human rights issues. While Assistant Secretary Craner understood the original reasoning behind the decision of Brian Atwood, the previous USAID administrator, to decentralize the structure of USAID, this decentralization has resulted in the loss of coherence and coordination among the various programs, including those that deal with labor, rule-of-law, and corruption. Mr. Marshall added that it was important to also examine labor issues in the context of economics. He noted an inherent tendency of economists to resist integrating labor issues into their analyses of country situations and the best means to improve conditions. Assistant Secretary Craner agreed that labor issues have an economic component. He has also observed that some of the international financial institutions are not conceptually current on the relevance of labor issues in economics, a situation that may require more active DRL intervention. Mr. Sweeney (expressing the sentiment of other Committee members) stated that Assistant Secretary Craner’s commitment and background on human rights and democracy issues was impressive. Ms. Chavez-Thompson asked whether in the rush to enlist countries in our fight against terrorism, the USG might overlook human rights abuses. Assistant Secretary Craner answered that the story that the State Department is seeking a blanket waiver on all human rights issues is "plain wrong." Though in the future, the Department may pursue human rights objectives in a different style, (e.g., the Department may choose not to denounce a country day after day for human rights abuses), the agenda will be advanced with firm support from the Department’s leadership. He noted that the Secretary has not asked for any changes in the International Religious Freedom report. The current State Department leadership understands that backing authoritarian regimes to the end is not good policy. These are lessons learned from Vietnam, Iran, and Nicaragua. Some countries may hope that the U.S. may back down from its human rights objectives. Assistant Secretary Craner stated that though there may be some changes in style, there will be no diminution in substance. Mr. Lucy observed that many of the countries from which the USG seeks support against terrorism also have the greatest disparities in the levels of the benefits of developments within their populations. Labor rights are often the least prevalent in these countries. Segments of these populations also admire the work of Osama Bin Laden for the tragedies of September 11. How can they be convinced of the U.S. cause? Assistant Secretary Craner responded that the USG should not attempt to impose our way of life on other countries. However, the USG should point out the value of people having a say in governance and having constructive outlets for dissent. There is a sea of people in which terrorists can swim, and the U.S. must drain that sea. His experience at IRI has demonstrated that improvements in human rights situations develop at their own pace, but the USG must encourage giving people a role in their government and accepting diversity of opinion and belief. Assistant Secretary Craner raised the example of Oman, where because the Emir had no heir, he gathered the regional chiefs into a governing council that is a precursor to a more formal legislature in the years ahead. Women are also voting in local elections. Mr. Lucy stated that most observers claim that political democracy flows from economic democracy. Assistant Secretary Craner said that the two types of democracy develop together. He said that he did not subscribe to the 80-year development theory that stipulates the slow development of a middle class is the first step to more democratic political development. He pointed out that one of the most effective methods for promoting democracy is to bring people from more recent transition countries (e.g., Poland) to exchange experiences with people from countries just developing their concepts of democracy (e.g., Oman, Qatar, China). Mr. Donahue thanked Assistant Secretary Craner for his valuable contribution to the meeting. Mr. Donahue then raised the issue of whether the Advisory Committee should address the issue of trade and labor. Mr. Sweeney contended that it would be useful for the Advisory Committee to present an overview of the trade and labor situation, and that presentation would be enhanced by a meeting with the Secretary of Labor. He went on to analyze the relationship between organized labor, USTR, and the Department of Labor, pointing out that on the Labor Advisory Committee, both agencies have been "dragging their feet." The AFL-CIO has heard remarks from staff level at these agencies that the AFL-CIO will be excluded from the Labor Advisory Committee, though this sentiment has not been echoed at more senior levels of USTR and DOL. In fact, Mr. Sweeney has enjoyed good access to USTR Robert Zoellick and WTO Head Michael Moore. He is hopeful that in the spirit of bi-partisanship, the trade promotion authority legislation will not be considered and understands the President has told Congressional leadership that the Administration does not plan to raise trade promotion authority. However, he has heard that Representative Bill Thomas is discussing a "write-up" of the legislation in the mid-October. Representative Charles Rangel is opposed to such a move. Mr. Sweeney suggested that given the interest on environment and labor standards in the trade area, perhaps it would be appropriate for the Committee to meet with USTR Zoellick to discuss these issues in more detail. In previous meetings with the AFL-CIO, USTR Zoellick has expressed interest in incorporating labor and environmental concerns, though it seems that message is not as clear in meetings USTR Zoellick has had with members of Congress. Mr. Marshall observed that it is clear that the Administration is more concerned about gaining political support for Trade promotion authority from those who may block its passage, than actually addressing the substance of labor standards and environmental concerns. He stated that doctrinaire free trade supporters understand that some provision for labor standards are necessary to gain passage of Trade promotion authority, but they do not understand the value of those standards. Mr. Marshall suggested that part of the second report should include a primer on why labor standards have a positive effect on trade. Empirical examples would be helpful. Mr. Sweeney agreed, reiterating the words of the Secretary of State, who said that the U.S. is not trying to impose democracy on other countries. Similarly, those who support the inclusion of labor standards are not advocating establishing U.S. minimum wage laws in all countries, but insisting instead that core labor standards should be addressed in developing countries. The organized labor movement has pushed for ratification of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement (which contains labor provisions), and that process is on track. In response to a question on coordination on labor and trade issues, Ms. Polaski explained that coordination takes place at a number of levels. In unilateral trade programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Generalized System of Preferences, interagency coordination is most developed. A standing committee exists that addresses a range of issues, including core labor standards. In terms of the bilateral and multi-lateral trade programs, there has been no real progress recently because agencies are waiting for the resolution on Trade promotion authority. Mr. Donahue said that the Committee’s role was to make recommendations; and if USTR was seeking Trade promotion authority, then the Committee should make recommendations to enhance the Administration’s ability to achieve it. In this context, it would be appropriate to discuss labor issues, as part of the "tool-box" and in bilateral and multilateral trade programs. Ms. Polaski stated that resolution on Trade promotion authority would provide a clearer context for trade and labor issues. Though to date, the process for coordination on bilateral and multilateral trade programs could be characterized as a "free-for-all", at this time, it is difficult to say what the Committee might recommend. Mr. Donahue said that the Trade promotion authority is a mandate from Congress to the Administration. In that context, it is appropriate for the Committee to suggest to the Administration that this mandate should include provisions for labor issues. Mr. Marshall observed that if labor is not included in Trade promotion authority, the Administration would pay less attention to worker rights issues. Mr. Donahue said that the Committee report would be incomplete without such a discussion. If the Administration is interested in an open international trading system, labor issues must be part of the picture. Mr. Lucy emphasized that given the tragedies of September 11, the Committee’s message must address workers as well as the Administration. Mr. Donahue suggested that the Mr. Freeman’s subcommittee meet with the Department of Labor, the National Endowment for Democracy, and USTR. Mr. Perlmutter suggested that Chairman Donahue separately meet with the new Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs before any larger Committee meeting. Mr. Donahue and Mr. Freeman also suggested meeting with Elliott Abrams of the NSC, and relevant officials from the State Department’s Bureau for Economics and Business Affairs. Mr. Donahue stated that the next document produced by the Committee could be considered a second report, supporting the idea of a primer that would "make the basic case" for worker rights issues. Mr. Simonoff pointed out that the first report already presented the case for the importance of labor issues and might be useful for drafting the second report. Ms. Shailor stated that ICFTU and ACTRAV (the worker’s bureau of the ILO) had both recently published insightful reports on labor issues that could inform the Committee’s own report. Ms. Polaski stated that the notion of a producing a primer would be welcome, at least by Assistant Secretary Craner, who has expressed interest in labor issues. Though the Committee charter does not make specific reference to policy issues, it is appropriate for the Committee to look in policy areas where labor issues can be stressed, such as the relationship between economic justice and security. Mr. Donahue also stated that the report should include a section that reviews State Department action on the recommendations of the first report. There being no other business, Mr. Donahue adjourned the meeting at approximately 1:00 pm. |
 | |||
|
