The inclusion of enforceable labor provisions—that is, those subject to dispute resolution procedures—in various trade agreement authorities and related reciprocal trade agreements has evolved over time. At first, U.S. trade policy focused on lowering tariffs on goods. It was later extended to various types of nontariff barriers. Labor principles and standards are not subject to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and disciplines. The International Labor Organization (ILO), an arm of the United Nations founded in 1919, is the multilateral organization with responsibility for labor issues. For nearly 90 years, the ILO has been working to create, through adoption at its annual International Labor Conferences of Member countries, Conventions , which set international standards. The ILO has adopted at least 183 Conventions, eight of which define four "core labor" principles. This occurred when first, a U.N. Social Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1995 declared that four categories of principles and rights at work are fundamental: (1) freedom of association and collective bargaining; (2) the elimination of forced labor; (3) the elimination of child labor; and (4) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The ILO then responded by pulling these together as the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up . The Declaration commits all ILO Member States, whether or not they have ratified the specific conventions, to respect the labor principles in these four key areas. The Follow-Up , among other things, calls for reports by developing countries that have not ratified one or more of the core Conventions, on the status of their implementation of the various rights. The United States had unilaterally promoted the development of "internationally recognized worker rights," principles similar to those in the ILO Declaration, through its trade preference laws for developing countries. These trade preference laws cover five main programs: the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), 1975; the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), 1983; the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), 1991; the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), 2000; and the Haiti Opportunity through Partnership Act (HOPE), 2006. These laws all require that as a condition of obtaining and maintaining program eligibility, beneficiary countries must take steps to afford their workers " internationally recognized worker rights ." These rights are listed in Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Section 507), as similar to ILO core labor principles listed above, except the U.S. list substitutes for the fourth principle listed above: "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health." In 1996, backed by the United States and other developed countries, the then-124-member WTO debated whether to form a committee to look into the relationship between trade and labor standards. Developing countries, in the majority, argued that the issue had no place in the WTO framework; was little more than a smokescreen for protectionism; and was a bid by industrial nations to undermine the comparative advantage of lower-wage trading partners. Ultimately they prevailed. The Singapore Ministerial Declaration, reporting on what they decided, stated that the ILO (rather than the WTO) would be the "competent body to set and deal with ... internationally recognized core labor standards." The ILO has no enforcement tools, but rather promotes labor standards through consensus, moral suasion, and technical assistance. Inclusion of labor provisions in bilateral U.S. trade agreements has evolved. The first two U.S. FTAs with Israel, 1985, and Canada, 1988, did not include labor provisions. This pattern began to change after 1993, when a number of factors came into play. First, the United States began to undertake FTA negotiations with lesser-developed countries. Second, it became increasingly accepted that labor issues were related to trade and trade policy. Third, consensus broadened that globalization had both costs and benefits. The benefits tend to be broadly dispersed and include relatively higher economic growth and productivity and greater access to lower-priced goods. The costs tend to be concentrated in import-competing sectors where there may be downward pressure on wages and job displacement. In developing countries, pressures to become a low-cost producer can lead to diminished working conditions and diminished worker rights. Fourth, business groups have increasingly been willing to make some concessions to labor groups in order to promote trade agreements and pave the way for greater trade with and investment in developing countries. Since 1993, the United States has negotiated 13 FTAs that include 19 countries. These are, chronologically, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada; bilateral agreements with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman; a regional agreement known as CAFTA-DR, with the Dominican Republic and the five Central American Countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua); and bilateral FTAs with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. The last four agreements reflect a bipartisan compromise on labor language as delineated in the "Bipartisan Trade Deal" (popularly known as the "May 10 th Agreement,") jointly agreed to between the leadership in Congress and the Administration on May 10, 2007. This agreement calls for, among other things, several additional labor provisions in FTAs including: (1) a fully enforceable commitment that FTA countries will adopt, maintain, and enforce in their laws and practice, the basic international labor standards as stated in the 1998 ILO Declaration; and (2) the use of identical enforcement provisions for labor and the other provisions in the agreements. Labor and enforcement provisions in these various trade agreements can be categorized into four different models. For NAFTA , labor provisions are included in the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) , a side agreement, rather than in the main agreement. Under NAALC, countries agree to enforce their own labor laws and standards. However, under NAALC, the only provision enforceable with sanctions is a Party's "persistent pattern of failure ... to effectively enforce its occupational safety and health, child labor or minimum wage technical standards," where that failure is trade-related and covered by mutually recognized labor laws (Article 29). By comparison, all provisions relating to commercial operations are enforceable under the NAFTA . Furthermore, the labor side agreement has different enforcement procedures than does the main agreement, and places limits on monetary enforcement assessments, with suspension of benefits for noncompliance. In the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement , labor provisions and commercial provisions share the same dispute resolution procedures. Among labor provisions, each Party agrees to "not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws ... in a manner affecting trade" (Article 6.4). Under the Jordan agreement, labor laws are defined as U.S. internationally recognized worker rights . All labor provisions and commercial provisions are equally enforceable. If the dispute is not resolved under procedures specified, the affected Party shall be entitled to take "any appropriate and commensurate measure" (Article 17.2(b)). However, in an exchange of letters between the USTR Robert Zoellick and Jordanian Ambassador Marwan Muasher before Congress considered the implementing legislation in 2001, the governments reportedly agreed to resolve any potential disputes without resorting to trade sanctions. Seven trade agreements with 12 different countries (Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Oman, and the six CAFTA-DR countries) include only one enforceable labor provision: each country "shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws ... in a manner affecting trade between the Parties." The agreements define labor laws as "a Party's statutes or regulations ... that are directly related to" the list of U.S. internationally recognized worker rights . All provisions in these agreements relating to commercial operations are enforceable. The seven trade agreements share many of the same procedures for labor and commercial disputes. Procedures for labor disputes place limits on monetary penalties, whereas those for commercial disputes do not. Suspension of benefits is a "last recourse" option for both types of disputes. On May 10, 2007, the bipartisan leadership in Congress and the Administration agreed to a Bipartisan Trade Deal to include, among other things, provisions in pending FTAs: with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These are (1) a fully enforceable commitment that Parties to free trade agreements would adopt and maintain in their laws and practices the ILO Declaration ; (2) a fully enforceable commitment prohibiting FTA countries from lowering their labor standards; (3) new limitations on "prosecutorial" and "enforcement" discretion (i.e., countries cannot defend failure to enforce laws related to the five basic core labor standards on the basis of resource limitations or decisions to prioritize other enforcement issues); and (4) the same dispute settlement mechanisms or penalties available for other FTA obligations (such as commercial interests). The four concepts were incorporated into all four agreements in virtually identical form. The language appears to limit item (1) in the May 10 th Agreement, described above, by including two footnotes to the key provision: that each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes, regulations, and practices, the rights as stated in the ILO Declaration and its Follow-Up . The first footnote limits obligations of Parties to those specified in the ILO Declaration (i.e., without also including the Follow-Up ). The second footnote requires that a party seeking to challenge violations must demonstrate that the failure to adopt or maintain ILO core labor principles has been "in a manner affecting either trade or investment between the two countries." In Model 4 resolution of disputes may involve monetary assessments (with no dollar limits) and, if they are not paid, suspension of benefits until the non-conformity is eliminated. The most recent agreements were approved by Congress in the following implementing bills: with Peru, in 2007 ( P.L.