[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13729-S13782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 434, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment 
     policy for sub-Sahara Africa.

  Pending:

       Lott (for Roth/Moynihan) amendment No. 2325, in the nature 
     of a substitute.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2360

  (Purpose: To establish trade negotiating objectives for the United 
States for the next round of World Trade Organization negotiations that 
  enhance the competitiveness of the United Stated agriculture, spur 
 economic growth, increase farm income, and produce full employment in 
                 the United States agricultural sector)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S13730]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 2360.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. AGRICULTURE TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES AND 
                   CONSULTATIONS WITH CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) United States agriculture contributes positively to the 
     United States balance of trade and United States agricultural 
     exports support in excess of 1,000,000 United States jobs;
       (2) United States agriculture competes successfully 
     worldwide despite the fact that United States producers are 
     at a competitive disadvantage because of the trade distorting 
     support and subsidy practices of other countries and despite 
     the fact that significant tariff and nontariff barriers exist 
     to United States exports; and
       (3) a successful conclusion of the next round of World 
     Trade Organization negotiations is critically important to 
     the United States agricultural sector.
       (b) Objectives.--The agricultural trade negotiating 
     objectives of the United States with respect to the World 
     Trade Organization negotiations include--
       (1) immediately eliminating all export subsidies worldwide 
     while maintaining bona fide food aid and preserving United 
     States market development and export credit programs that 
     allow the United States to compete with other foreign export 
     promotion efforts;
       (2) leveling the playing field for United States producers 
     of agricultural products by eliminating blue box subsidies 
     and disciplining domestic supports in a way that forces 
     producers to face world prices on all production in excess of 
     domestic food security needs while allowing the preservation 
     of non-trade distorting programs to support family farms and 
     rural communities;
       (3) disciplining state trading enterprises by insisting on 
     transparency and banning discriminatory pricing practices 
     that amount to de facto export subsidies so that the 
     enterprises do not (except in cases of bona fide food aid) 
     sell in foreign markets at prices below domestic market 
     prices or prices below the full costs of acquiring and 
     delivering agricultural products to the foreign markets;
       (4) insisting that the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Accord 
     agreed to in the Uruguay Round applies to new technologies, 
     including biotechnology, and clarifying that labeling 
     requirements to allow consumers to make choices regarding 
     biotechnology products or other regulatory requirements 
     cannot be used as disguised barriers to trade;
       (5) increasing opportunities for United States exports of 
     agricultural products by first reducing tariff and nontariff 
     barriers to trade to the same or lower levels than exist in 
     the United States and then eliminating barriers, such as--
       (A) restrictive or trade distorting practices that 
     adversely impact perishable or cyclical products;
       (B) restrictive rules in the administration of tariff-rate 
     quotas; and
       (C) unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions or 
     other unjustified technical barriers to agricultural trade;
       (6) encouraging government policies that avoid price-
     depressing surpluses; and
       (7) strengthening dispute settlement procedures so that 
     countries cannot maintain unjustified restrictions on United 
     States exports in contravention of their commitments.
       (c) Consultation With Congressional Committees.--
       (1) Consultation before offer made.--Before the United 
     States Trade Representative negotiates a trade agreement that 
     would reduce tariffs on agricultural products or require a 
     change in United States agricultural law, the United States 
     Trade Representative shall consult with the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Consultation before agreement initialed.--Not less than 
     48 hours before initialing an agreement relating to 
     agricultural trade negotiated under the auspices of the World 
     Trade Organization, the United States Trade Representative 
     shall consult closely with the committees referred to in 
     paragraph (1) regarding--
       (A) the details of the agreement;
       (B) the potential impact of the agreement on United States 
     agricultural producers; and
       (C) any changes in United States law necessary to implement 
     the agreement.
       (3) No secret side deals.--Any agreement or other 
     understanding (whether verbal or in writing) that relates to 
     agricultural trade that is not disclosed to the Congress 
     before legislation implementing a trade agreement is 
     introduced in either house of Congress shall not be 
     considered to be part of the agreement approved by Congress 
     and shall have no force and effect under United States law or 
     in any dispute settlement body.
       (d) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) reaching a successful agreement on agriculture should 
     be the top priority of United States negotiators; and
       (2) if the primary competitors of the United States do not 
     reduce their trade distorting domestic supports and export 
     subsidies in accordance with the negotiating objectives 
     expressed in this section, the United States should increase 
     its support and subsidy levels to level the playing field in 
     order to improve United States farm income and to encourage 
     United States competitors to eliminate export subsidies and 
     domestic supports that are harmful to United States farmers 
     and ranchers.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Grassley and I are 
offering is to set the negotiating objectives for agriculture for our 
trade negotiators at the next round of trade talks. I don't think 
anybody in this Chamber appreciates any more than the current occupant 
of the chair how serious the crisis in agriculture is in our part of 
the country. We have seen what I call a triple whammy to American 
agricultural producers: bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. That 
triple whammy has threatened literally tens of thousands of farm 
families.
  Certainly, in my State, where we had a special crisis team at USDA 
analyze the circumstances when the Secretary of Agriculture was coming 
to North Dakota a year ago, that team said that if something dramatic 
did not happen in the next 2 years, we would lose 30 percent--and 
perhaps more--of the farm families in North Dakota. That is how serious 
the circumstances are.
  I will put up a couple of charts to demonstrate the problem we face.
  The key determinant to farm income is farm prices. Farm prices, as 
this chart shows, are at a 53-year low in real terms. This chart 
depicts wheat and barley prices from 1946 to 1999, and it shows these 
prices in constant dollars. So we are comparing apples to apples. What 
one can see is that prices have had a long-term downward trend over 
this 53-year period, with one major interruption that occurred back in 
the 1970s. I think we all recall those times, when we saw a tremendous 
spike in virtually all commodity prices. But over the long term, when 
we compare on a fair basis, what we see is constantly declining prices, 
and we see now the lowest prices in 53 years in real terms. That is why 
we see so many serious concerns in farm country about what the future 
holds.
  This chart represents a little different way of looking at what faces 
our producers because this looks at not only the prices farmers 
receive--that is the red line--but also what the farmers are paying for 
the inputs to produce their crops. This looks at over a 10-year period. 
One can see that the prices farmers are paying for their inputs have 
escalated rather dramatically during this 10-year period. That is not 
true about the prices farmers are receiving. Those prices peaked at the 
time we were discussing the last farm bill, in 1996.
  It was very interesting that, at the time we were told farmers were 
going to have a remarkable situation--they were faced with what we were 
told at the time was permanently high farm prices because of export 
demand--those permanently high prices lasted about 90 days. That was 
just about the time we were passing the last farm bill. After that, 
prices collapsed and collapsed on a continuous basis. We have had 
nothing but one way for prices, and that is down, down, down. That is 
the reason we have seen a collapse of farm income.
  This chart is another way of looking at what is happening. This shows 
a comparison of the prices farmers receive--the red line--to the cost 
of their production, which is the green line. This is for wheat. Wheat 
is the dominant commodity in my State. You can see the cost of 
production is about $5 a bushel. But ever since the last farm bill 
passed, we have been well below the cost of production. In fact, now we 
are down to about $2.50, $2.60, $2.70 a bushel, depending on the day 
and market conditions at the time--far below the cost of production. 
This is what is undermining financial security for American producers.

  It is not just wheat. If I had put up the chart on corn, or barley, 
or on virtually any commodity, one would see the same pattern. It is 
not just in crops; it is also in livestock. Last year, we saw hogs go 
down to 8 cents a

[[Page S13731]]

pound. It costs 40 cents a pound to produce a hog. So this combination 
of high input costs for farmers yet low prices for what they sell has 
put farmers in a cost/price squeeze. That squeeze is getting tighter 
and tighter. It is eliminating farm income.
  That is why this next round of trade talks is so critically important 
because, very frankly, we have been playing a losing hand in 
agriculture. I think anybody who has really studied the matter 
understands that our chief competitors--the Europeans--are outspending 
us, outhustling us, and, as a result, they are winning markets all 
across the world that were once ours.
  If we just pierce the veil here and look below the surface, I think 
what we see is very revealing. This shows what Europe has been doing in 
terms of agricultural support over the last 3 years; that is the red 
box. That is what Europe is spending per year, the average for the last 
3 years. The blue box is what the United States is spending under the 
last farm bill. You can see that the disparity is enormous. The 
Europeans are spending $44 billion a year, on average; the United 
States, under the terms of the last farm bill, is spending $6 billion a 
year--a 7-to-1 disparity.
  It is very hard to be successful or to have a level playing field 
when the opponents are outspending you 7-to-1. We would never permit 
this in a military confrontation. Why we permit it in a trade 
confrontation eludes me. It is a guaranteed path to disaster. That is 
precisely what has happened.
  If we look at this in a somewhat different way, if we look at it in 
terms of export subsidy for agricultural commodities, and we look at 
various regions of the world, we see another interesting picture 
emerge. This shows in the last year for which we have full figures, 
1996, who was doing what with respect to agricultural trade subsidy. 
There are our European friends again. They are the blue hunk of the 
pie; 83.5 percent of all world agricultural export subsidy belongs to 
the Europeans. Here is the U.S. share, at 1.4 percent, this little 
piece of the pie right here.
  I know a lot of my colleagues think we are spending too much on 
agriculture. I hear it all the time from some of our colleagues from 
more urban areas.
  I say to them that you have to look at what is happening in the rest 
of the world. You have to look at what our competitors are doing. If 
you look at what our competitors are doing, it is dramatic and it is 
clear.
  Here are the Europeans. Nearly 84 percent of all world agricultural 
export subsidy is accounted for by the Europeans. The United States is 
1.4 percent.
  These aren't Kent Conrad's figures. These aren't the figures from the 
Governor of North Dakota. These aren't figures from the agriculture 
commissioner of North Dakota. These are the statistics from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. They show Europe is outspending us on 
agricultural export subsidies by 60 to 1. How are you going to win a 
fight when you are outgunned 60 to 1? This is totally unfair to our 
farmers. They don't have a level playing field from which to compete. 
They have a playing field that is totally distorted. We have to change 
this playing field. We have to level it out. We have to make it 
possible for our farmers to compete fairly.
  We are willing to compete against anybody at any time. But it is not 
fair to say to our farmers: You go out there and take on the French and 
German farmers, and while you are at it, take on the French and German 
Governments as well. That isn't a fair fight.
  We shouldn't abandon our farmers to that kind of circumstance. But 
that is precisely what we have done because in the last farm bill we 
cut our support to producers in half. Under the previous farm bill, we 
were spending, on average, $10 billion a year to support our producers 
in the face of the competition from the Europeans who were spending $50 
billion a year during that period.
  What did we decide to do? Did we decide to level the playing field? 
No. We engaged in unilateral disarmament on the pretext that if we cut 
somehow we would set a good example for the Europeans and they would 
follow right along.
  Guess what. We cut our support in half for agricultural producers 
under the new farm bill, down to $5 billion a year on average. What did 
the Europeans do? Did they follow suit? Did they take our ``good 
example''? I put that in quotes, our ``good example.'' No. The 
Europeans kept right on spending.
  Do you know why? Because they have a strategy and they have a plan. 
Their strategy and plan is to dominate world agricultural trade. They 
are doing it the old-fashioned way. They are buying these markets.
  I have spent a good deal of time talking to the European negotiators. 
What they have shared with me is as clear as it can be. They have said 
to me: Senator, we believe we are in a trade war with the United States 
on agriculture. We believe at some point there will be a cease-fire in 
this trade war. We believe there will be a cease-fire in place, and we 
want to occupy the high ground. The high ground in this contest is 
world market share. That is exactly the strategy and plan of our 
European friends.
  They have said to me: You know, Senator, we have much higher levels 
of support in our country than you have in yours, and we believe in all 
of these negotiations instead of leveling the playing field, and 
instead of closing the gap, that we will be able to secure equal 
percentage reductions in the level of support on both sides.
  If you think about it, they have much higher levels of support in 
Europe, as I have demonstrated, than we do in this country. They seek 
to get equal percentage reductions from those unequal bases leaving 
Europe always on top. That is their strategy. That is their plan. Oh, 
how well it is working.

  In the last trade talks, although the levels of support were 
dramatically uneven, was there any closing of the gap? Not at all, not 
any closing of the gap. They didn't come down. We didn't go up. Both of 
us did not engage in a pattern and practice that would narrow the 
differences. Instead, what they won were equal percentage reductions 
from those unequal bases maintaining European dominance.
  If we let that happen again, shame on us, because we will be 
consigning our farmers to the dustbin of financial failure. There is no 
other way this can come out. That is going to be the absolute assured 
result if we come back with another failed negotiation.
  Some people blame our negotiators. I personally do not. I blame us 
because we have sent unarmed negotiators to the negotiations.
  In my previous job, mostly what I did was negotiate. One thing I 
learned very early on in my previous life was that you don't win in 
negotiation unless you have leverage. You have to have leverage in 
order to prevail in a negotiation.
  Our negotiators have no leverage. What leverage do they conceivably 
have when we send them in there and the other side is outgunning us on 
export subsidies 60 to 1? How are they going to win a negotiation with 
that sort of fact? How are they going to win when Europe has 84 percent 
of the world's export subsidy and we have 1.4 percent? How are we 
possibly going to prevail in that kind of negotiating climate? I say 
there is very little chance that we are.
  That is why I have introduced the FITEA bill, Farm Income and Trade 
Equity Act, to try to level the playing field, to rearm our negotiators 
to give us a chance to prevail in these negotiations.
  That bill is gaining steam. It has gotten broad support in my own 
home State of North Dakota. I believe it is going to get even greater 
support around the country.
  Earlier this week, I went to meet in Baltimore with the State 
presidents of the National Farmers Union. I gave them an outline of the 
FITEA plan. I hope they will endorse it.
  The national rural electric service areas have before them at their 
regional meetings opportunities to endorse the FITEA plan. It has 
already been endorsed by eight or nine of the national rural electric 
service areas.
  We have to give our negotiators leverage. But at the same time we 
have to also give them instructions. We have to tell them what their 
negotiating objectives are in this next round of trade talks. It is our 
responsibility. We can't leave it to the President. Certainly, it is 
his obligation as well. But Congress has a role to play. I believe we 
ought to take the opportunity to send a clear

[[Page S13732]]

message to our trade ambassador and her assistants as to what their 
negotiating objectives are with respect to agriculture.
  That is what we have before us in the amendment offered on a 
bipartisan basis by Senator Grassley of Iowa and myself. Senator 
Grassley and I serve on both the Agriculture Committee and the Finance 
Committee. We have a special responsibility. We have taken it 
seriously. That is why we have come forward with a set of negotiating 
objectives for our trade ambassador in this next round of trade talks.
  This amendment sets out seven principal negotiating objectives for 
agriculture:
  No. 1, we should insist on the immediate elimination of all export 
subsidy programs worldwide. The elimination of all export subsidies 
worldwide should be the negotiating objective.
  No. 2, we should insist that the European Union and others adopt 
domestic farm policies that force their producers to face world market 
prices at the margin so they do not produce more than is needed for 
their own domestic markets.
  It is one thing for a country to adopt domestic policy that supports 
higher prices to meet domestic demand. It is quite another thing for 
them to have higher prices domestically and, therefore, develop greater 
production than they need for the domestic market and then dump that 
surplus on the world market at fire sale prices depressing prices for 
everyone.
  Objective No. 2 is to insist that the E.U. and others adopt domestic 
farm policies that force their producers to face world prices at the 
margin.
  No. 3, we should insist that State trading enterprises, such as the 
Canadian Wheat Board, are disciplined so that their actions are 
transparent and so they do not provide de facto export subsidies.
  Sometimes we fool ourselves with our own rhetoric around here. We 
talk about free markets. Many are strong supporters of free markets. In 
agriculture, there are no free markets. We can see, through what the 
Europeans are doing and spending to buy these markets, that we are not 
dealing in a free-market circumstance in world agricultural trade.
  We are certainly not dealing with it with respect to our neighbors to 
the north in Canada. There, individual farmers don't market their 
commodities; they have a wheat board that markets for them. A very 
significant portion of production goes to the wheat board, and they 
market on behalf of all of their farmers. Does anyone think that gives 
them all kinds of opportunities to play games in world markets? 
Absolutely, because the prices they charge are not transparent. Anyone 
can learn our prices any minute of any day by going to the Chicago 
Board of Trade and seeing what commodities are selling for. Try to find 
out what our friends to the north are selling for. They don't have a 
transparent market. They are not advertising their prices, except to 
the major buyers in the world. The few times we have a glimpse of what 
they are doing, we find they go to buyers before other countries and 
say: Whatever the United States is selling for, we are selling for 5 
cents less a bushel. That is what they are doing in order to take 
markets that have traditionally been ours. We have to wake up and smell 
the coffee.
  No. 4, we should insist on the use of sound science when it comes to 
sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions. Too often, these are hidden 
protectionist trade barriers. On genetically modified organisms, we 
should insist foreign markets be open to our products, but obviously we 
can't force consumers to buy what they don't want. We have to give 
consumers the ability to make an informed choice on whether they want 
to buy these products without letting inflammatory labels be used as 
hidden trade barriers.

  No. 5, we should insist our trading partners immediately reduce their 
tariffs on our agricultural exports to levels no higher than ours, and 
then further reduce these barriers on a cooperative and comprehensive 
basis.
  No. 6, we should seek cooperative agricultural policies to avoid 
price-depressing surpluses or food shortages. My own long-term view for 
agriculture is, we desperately need to have among the major producers a 
common set-aside policy, a common conservation reserve policy, and a 
common food reserve policy.
  No. 7, we should strengthen disputes settlement and enforce existing 
commitments. The United States honors its international obligations, 
but all too often our trading partners refuse to live up to their 
commitments and use the dispute settlement process to delay our efforts 
to call them to account. That is totally unacceptable, and we need to 
send that message very clearly.
  These are the seven principles we believe we should send as an 
instruction to our trade ambassador. We should say very clearly that we 
believe these are the things they need to accomplish in this next round 
of trade talks. I also think we should say: Don't bring back under any 
circumstances equal percentage reductions in support from these unequal 
bases. Don't do that. That way lies permanent inferiority in the 
position of world agricultural trade. If we want to fritter away our 
long-term dominance, that is the path for such a result.
  I urge my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this 
amendment. Senator Grassley and I have worked in a bipartisan way in 
consultation with other colleagues. We believe these are the 
appropriate negotiating objectives for our trade representatives in the 
agricultural sector.
  Let me end where I began. American agriculture is in crisis. We 
desperately need a victory in the next round of trade talks, and we 
need it soon. Our farmers simply cannot survive year after year in a 
circumstance in which our major competition outspends us 7-1 on 
domestic support and 60-1 on export subsidies.
  I believe our farmers can compete against any producer anywhere in 
the world but they have to have a level playing field. They have to 
have a country that is fighting for them when our chief competitors are 
fighting for their producers at every set of trade talks.
  I hope very much our colleagues will support this amendment that lays 
out clear negotiating objectives for our trade representatives in this 
next round of trade talks. I believe this amendment is a first step in 
that process. I urge my colleagues to support it. I welcome 
cosponsorship, as I know Senator Grassley would, from other Members who 
are concerned about these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If my colleague will yield for a question, I don't 
intend to take the floor.
  After the Conrad amendment is disposed of, is it the intention of the 
chairman to have votes?
  Mr. ROTH. I am going to ask unanimous consent to set aside this 
amendment. Senator Grassley desires the opportunity to comment. I think 
we will stack votes as we did yesterday. It would be in order for 
another amendment to be raised.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I need to go to a markup.
  Mr. ROTH. We will be ready in a minute for another amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I could say to my friend from 
Minnesota, if he has 5 minutes, he can start.
  Mr. ROTH. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside this 
amendment. As I said, Senator Grassley, the cosponsor of this 
legislation, desires the opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi and Senator 
Ashcroft be listed as original cosponsors of the Conrad-Grassley 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I might comment on the remarks of my 
friend from North Dakota regarding the Seattle ministerial conference 
which begins at the end of this month. There is no wide agreement on 
what the next round of negotiations will address. However, there is no 
doubt that agriculture will be one of the matters addressed in the next 
round. There is much disagreement in other areas.
  The idea of our setting some negotiating objectives is a good idea, 
in my view, and I think the chairman agrees.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I share that opinion. There is no question 
but it is appropriate for Congress to help set these objectives.
  I say to my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, I agree very 
much

[[Page S13733]]

about the need to develop a level playing field. One of my concerns is 
the fact our markets are the most open markets in the world. That 
obviously includes agriculture. The purpose of these negotiations 
should be to lower them in such a way that everyone is on an even 
playing field. I am very sympathetic to what the Senator is proposing.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am sure the chairman will agree, and I cannot doubt 
that my friend from North Dakota will agree, it would be much better if 
the President were to go to Seattle with the traditional trade 
negotiating authority other Presidents have had. This President does 
not. It is not for the lack of the Finance Committee trying to give it 
to him. There has been a real breakdown at both ends of the avenue, as 
it were. The White House has let small political considerations enter 
into their calculations. We are not unknown to such failings ourselves.

  But the fact is, at the end of the 20th century the President of the 
United States does not have the negotiating authority he has had, in 
essence, for 65 years--since the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 
1934. The more, then, ought we try to speak to the coming negotiations 
in the manner suggested; the more, then, should we get this legislation 
passed else the President might decide not to go at all.
  Mr. ROTH. I think that would be a very serious setback. Let me 
comment on fast track. As the Senator said, our committee, of course, 
has acted on that. I regret the President does not have this authority. 
I have to say I do not think negotiations can be effective until the 
President obtains it. Does the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is an elemental fact in international relations that 
most countries have a unitary legislative/executive branch, such that 
if the Prime Minister of Great Britain sends his Foreign Secretary to 
negotiate, that Foreign Secretary represents a majority in the House of 
Commons. Any agreement they reach will be ratified.
  That is not the case with us. The world discovered this in 1919 when 
the Treaty of Versailles, negotiated by President Wilson, was not 
ratified in this Chamber. That sank in over the next 20 years. So we 
have been giving the President this authority so his representatives 
can say: If I make an agreement, we will keep the agreement.
  Absent that, I do not know what will come. I think I am correct--I 
take the liberty of asking my able assistant, Dr. Podoff--we have never 
had a multilateral GATT or WTO negotiation without the President having 
traditional negotiating authority, have we, to complete the 
negotiations? No.
  This, sir, would be the first time--the first time. That is not an 
experiment I think we should be running, but perhaps we can make up for 
it in time. In the meantime, I welcome the thoughts of my friend, our 
colleague on the Committee on Finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
for their consideration. They have been most patient in listening to me 
today and on the Finance Committee as I have talked about these issues. 
I appreciate, too, they believe, as I do, it is appropriate for us to 
lay out negotiating objectives for our trade representatives for this 
next round. I hope very much our colleagues will support this 
amendment. I think it is important to send a signal as to what we 
expect our trade representatives to focus on in the agricultural 
sector.
  Again, I thank our chairman and our ranking member very much for 
their assistance this morning. I note my cosponsor, Senator Grassley, 
is held up in committee. He would very much like to speak on this 
amendment before it is finally considered. So I appreciate the 
consideration of the chairman and ranking member with respect to 
providing time for him as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in support of an amendment 
I am sponsoring with Senator Conrad to establish trade negotiating 
objectives for the new round of multilateral trade negotiations the 
United States will help launch in about four weeks with 133 other WTO 
member nations in Seattle.
  The principles contained in this amendment are important because the 
upcoming negotiations in agriculture are so vital to our farm economy, 
and vital to the United States.
  The last multilateral trade round, the Uruguay Round, established, 
for the first time, multilateral rules on market access, export 
subsidies, and domestic support for agriculture.
  But as significant as the Uruguay Round was for agriculture, it was 
only a first step. Much remains to be done.
  Agricultural tariffs in industrial countries still average more than 
40 percent, compared with tariffs of 5 to 10 percent in manufactured 
goods.
  The average world agricultural tariff is 56 percent. In the United 
States, it is 3 percent. But tariffs for some agricultural products 
reach 200 percent or more.
  Export subsidies are still far too high, and distort trade in third-
country markets.
  Producer subsidy equivalents, which measure assistance to producers 
in terms of the value of transfers to farmers generated by agricultural 
policy, are also far higher in the European Union than in the United 
States.
  These transfers are paid either by consumers or by taxpayers in the 
form of market price support, direct payments, or other support.
  The Producer subsidy equivalent for all agricultural products in the 
EU has averaged around 45 percent.
  In the United States, the producer subsidy equivalent is only 16 
percent.
  So-called ``Blue Box'' spending is also out of control. This is the 
trade-distorting spending that was authorized in the Uruguay Round.
  Currently, the United States has no programs that fall within the 
Blue Box. But the European Union maintains huge trade-distorting 
subsidy payments.
  We should finally admit that the Blue Box is a mistake, and eliminate 
it completely.
  State trading enterprises allow some countries to undercut United 
States exports into third markets and restrict imports.
  And the principle of sound science is being thwarted with regard to 
bio-engineered products, to the great detriment of our farm economy.
  We need to address all of these issues in the upcoming WTO 
negotiations.
  But we also need to make certain that when we negotiate with our 
trading partners, that the deal we finally implement is the one that 
was actually negotiated, and not a different agreement that was changed 
later through secret understanding or side arrangement.
  This is an important principle of international law. It is also a 
basic principle of equity and fairness.
  Only after the WTO Agreement was signed into law did some of us in 
the Senate learn for the first time that there was more to the Uruguay 
Round agreement than we originally thought, due to secret side 
agreements.
  This must not happen again.
  The amendment I am offering with Senator Conrad will insure that this 
practice will end.
  The only trade deal that should be enforced is the one the parties 
actually negotiated.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, so that we can 
get this new round of trade negotiations off to the best possible 
start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, am I correct, then, the understanding 
is before a final vote on this amendment, Senator Grassley will be 
speaking and right now I will go forward with my amendment? Is that 
correct?
  Mr. President, before I send this amendment to the desk, I want to 
emphasize one issue that this amendment does not speak to directly but 
which is very much on my mind. There is an (A) and a (B) part to this 
issue.
  The (A) part is the economic convulsion in agriculture that has taken 
place all across our land, and certainly in our State of Minnesota. I 
also hasten to add there is no question in my mind that if we do not 
change the course of policy, we are going to lose a whole generation of 
producers.
  The (B) part of what I want to say before going forward with this 
amendment is that I have, for at least the last 6 weeks, if not longer, 
been involved in what I would almost have to describe as a ferocious 
fight to have

[[Page S13734]]

the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor that speaks to at 
least part of what is going on with this crisis in agriculture. No one 
amendment is the be-all or end-all. But one amendment would deal with 
all the mergers that are taking place and the ways in which these 
conglomerates are driving out family farmers across the land, the whole 
problem of concentration of power in the food industry, in agriculture.
  Other colleagues from agricultural States such as Minnesota have 
other ideas, but the point is that we want an opportunity to bring an 
amendment to the floor that speaks to what is going on in agriculture. 
I thought we would have the opportunity to do that on this trade bill. 
We have been clotured out. Last week, we were successful in blocking 
cloture. Now we have been clotured out, with the understanding this 
will happen on the bankruptcy bill.
  I want to express my skepticism on the floor of the Senate today as 
to whether or not that bankruptcy bill will be brought to the floor and 
whether or not we will have that opportunity. I want to express some 
indignation in advance if, in fact, we end up closing out this part of 
our session and going home without having had any debate, further 
debate about agriculture, and any effort whatsoever to alleviate the 
pain and misery in the countryside. I think it should be a top priority 
for us.
  Over the next several days, whatever period we are dealing with, I am 
going to continue to fight to get this amendment out there. My 
understanding is we have an agreement that there will be an amendment 
on agriculture that will be part of the debate we will have when the 
bankruptcy bill comes to the floor, along with minimum wage, along with 
East Timor. That is the commitment that has been made. I certainly hope 
we will see that commitment carried out.


                           Amendment No. 2487

   (Purpose: To condition trade benefits for Caribbean countries on 
        compliance with internationally recognized labor rights)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only filed amendments may be called up. Does 
the Senator have a filed amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry, the amendment has been filed. I do not 
need to send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Which number is the amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Since I did not know it had been filed, I will speak 
on the amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Is it 2487?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 2487 is the number.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I just slip over and make sure we 
have the right amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I apologize. I did not know the amendment had been 
filed.
  When I talk about labor rights, my colleague from New York is very 
familiar with the ILO. This is his fine work. What we are talking about 
is the right of association, the right to organize and bargain 
collectively, the prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or 
compulsory labor, some kind of international minimum wage for the 
employment of children age 15, and acceptable working conditions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . ENCOURAGING TRADE AND INVESTMENT MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL 
                   TO BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND CARIBBEAN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Conditioning of Trade Benefits on Compliance With 
     Internationally Recognized Labor Rights.--None of the 
     benefits provided to beneficiary countries under the CBTEA 
     shall be made available before the Secretary of Labor has 
     made a determination pursuant to paragraph (b) of the 
     following:
       (1) The beneficiary country does not engage in significant 
     violations of internationally recognized human rights and the 
     Secretary of State agrees with this determination; and
       (2)(A) The beneficiary country is providing for effective 
     enforcement of internationally recognized worker rights 
     throughout the country (including in export processing zones) 
     as determined under paragraph (b), including the core labor 
     standards enumerated in the appropriate treaties of the 
     International Labor Organization, and including--
       (i) the right of association;
       (ii) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
       (iii) a prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or 
     compulsory labor;
       (iv) the international minimum age for the employment of 
     children (age 15); and
       (v) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
     wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
       (B) The government of the beneficiary country ensures that 
     the Secretary of Labor, the head of the national labor agency 
     of the government of that country, and the head of the Inter-
     American Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT) each has 
     access to all appropriate records and other information of 
     all business enterprises in the country.
       (b) Determination of Compliance With Internationally 
     Recognized Worker Rights.--
       (1) Determination.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of carrying out paragraph 
     (a)(2), the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the 
     individuals described in clause (B) and pursuant to the 
     procedures described in clause (C), shall determine whether 
     or not each beneficiary country is providing for effective 
     enforcement of internationally recognized worker rights 
     throughout the country (including in export processing 
     zones).
       (B) Individuals described.--The individuals described in 
     this clause are the head of the national labor agency of the 
     government of the beneficiary country in question and the 
     head of the Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers 
     (ORIT).
       (C) Public comment.--Not later than 90 days before the 
     Secretary of Labor makes a determination that a country is in 
     compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register and an 
     opportunity for public comment. The Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the comments received in making a determination 
     under such paragraph (a)(2).
       (2) Continuing compliance.--In the case of a country for 
     which the Secretary of Labor has made an initial 
     determination under subparagraph (1) that the country is in 
     compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the individuals described in 
     subparagraph (1), shall, not less than once every 3 years 
     thereafter, conduct a review and make a determination with 
     respect to that country to ensure continuing compliance with 
     the requirements of paragraph (a)(2). The Secretary shall 
     submit the determination to Congress.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (A) a description of each determination made under this 
     paragraph during the preceding year;
       (B) a description of the position taken by each of the 
     individuals described in subparagraph (1)(B) with respect to 
     each such determination; and
       (C) a report on the public comments received pursuant to 
     subparagraph (1)(C).
       (c) Additional Enforcement.--A citizen of the United States 
     shall have a cause of action in the United States district 
     court in the district in which the citizen resides or in any 
     other appropriate district to seek compliance with the 
     standards set forth under this section with respect to any 
     CBTEA beneficiary country, including a cause of action in an 
     appropriate United States district court for other 
     appropriate equitable relief. In addition to any other relief 
     sought in such an action, a citizen may seek the value of any 
     damages caused by the failure of a country or company to 
     comply.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment would provide for 
mutually beneficial trade between the United States and Caribbean 
countries by actually rewarding countries that comply with 
internationally recognized core labor rights with increased access to 
U.S. markets for certain textile goods.
  That is what this should be about. We ought to reward countries that 
are willing to comply with internationally recognized core labor rights 
with increased access to the U.S. market.
  This amendment provides for enforceable standards--let me emphasize 
this. I say to my colleagues, and I know they believe me, I am an 
internationalist. I very much want to see expanded trade. I very much 
want to see expanded relations with other countries. The question is 
the terms of trade, and I am especially focused on the need to have 
enforceable labor standards.
  Under this amendment, before any of the benefits of the CBI trade 
bill can go into effect, the Secretary of Labor will have to determine 
a CBI country is providing for enforcement of the core ILO labor 
rights. That is what this amendment does.
  The Secretary will make this determination after consulting with 
labor people from the region and after consideration of public 
comments. But the Secretary of Labor will make the determination to 
make sure the country

[[Page S13735]]

with which we have trade relations is providing for the enforcement of 
the ILO core labor rights. I want to make sure these standards are 
enforceable. U.S. citizens will also have a private right of action in 
district courts to enforce these provisions.
  The alternatives in the CBI Parity bill are unenforceable. That is my 
dissent from this legislation. The CBI Parity bill merely includes 
labor rights as an eligibility criterion which can only be enforced by 
the administration. But the administration already enforces the GSP 
program and has never, not one time, suspended a CBI country, despite 
their terrible labor rights records.
  Later on, I will provide, from my point of view, too much by way of 
documentation. That is to say, the number of petitions that have been 
filed with the USTR under the GSP program. Every single time the 
petition has been withdrawn. There has been no real response.
  If the administration will not use its GSP leverage to improve labor 
rights in these countries, why would we expect them to use an 
eligibility criterion? The ILO is not an option because it does not 
have the enforcement power. I want to make sure there are some 
enforceable labor standards that will apply to this CBI trade 
agreement.
  Some examples of GSP workers' rights cases accepted for review 
against major CBI countries are as follows:
  Costa Rica, 1993, right of association, right to organize and bargain 
collectively, acceptable working conditions, petition withdrawn. That 
is the outcome.
  Dominican Republic, 1989-1991, right of association, right to 
organize and bargain collectively--these are core labor rights--forced 
labor, child labor, review terminated in 1991 due to introduction of 
``labor code reform.''
  El Salvador, 1990-1994, right of association, right to organize and 
bargain collectively, review terminated.
  Guatemala, 1992-1997, right of association, right to organize and 
bargain collectively, again, review terminated.
  The list goes on.
  What we want to do is parallel to what Senator Feingold has done in 
his HOPE for Africa bill. That is, we want to apply some enforceable 
labor standards. We want to reward countries that comply with 
internationally recognized core labor rights. In this amendment, we 
call for the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not a CBI 
country is providing for the enforcement of ILO core labor rights. Why 
wouldn't we want to do that in a piece of trade legislation? When will 
we?
  Supporters of CBI parity complain that NAFTA-like benefits will help 
Caribbean workers. I have heard that argument made over and over. I 
want to read from a report that came out in October of 1999: ``Six 
years of NAFTA: A review from inside the maquiladoras.''

  This 1999 report on the Mexican maquiladoras shows wages and 
conditions have actually deteriorated since passage of NAFTA. This was 
a joint effort between the Comite Fronterizo de Obreras and the 
American Friends Service Committee. I will quote from relevant sections 
of the report, ``Six years of NAFTA: A review from inside the 
maquiladoras'':

       In Mexican manufacturing, real wages have fallen by more 
     than 20 percent since 1994. It is not only that real wages 
     have remained stagnant overall, failing to keep pace with 
     inflation, but wage levels have also come under attack 
     wherever they are over the threshold considered competitive 
     by the maquiladoras.

  One sees over and over, in going through this report, wage levels 
dropping, basic violations of the people to organize, and failure to 
enforce child labor standards. When I hear about NAFTA-like benefits, I 
have to question whether or not this is the future.
  I will speak about the CBI countries and what I call the race to the 
bottom. The CBI countries with the fastest export growth to the United 
States have also experienced the steepest decline in wages in the 
region. Over the last 10 years, textile and apparel imports from 
Honduras exploded by a whopping 2,523 percent. Yet from the 10 years 
spanning 1985 to 1996, wages of Honduran workers declined by 59 
percent.
  I will repeat this since we are talking about the benefits for the 
workers in these countries. I am not making an argument that we should 
have enforceable labor standards because I only care about workers in 
our country. I do care about workers in our country, and I do worry 
that the message we're sending to workers in our country, if we do not 
have enforceable labor standards in this agreement, is: If you dare to 
organize and bargain collectively to get a better wage and a better 
standard of living for yourselves and your families, then these 
companies will just go to the Caribbean countries.
  That is part of the message. Let me tell you why I think it is the 
message. This is a list of approximate apparel wages around the world. 
In the United States, the average is $8.42. Do my colleagues know what 
it is in Colombia? Seventy to 80 cents; Dominican Republic, 69 cents; 
El Salvador, 59 cents; Guatemala, somewhere between 37 to 50 cents; 
Haiti, 30 cents; Honduras, 43 cents; Nicaragua, 23 cents.
  I am worried that not only is the message to workers in our country: 
Look, we will just go to these countries where we can pay 23 or 40 
cents an hour; you cannot compete with them so you dare not call for 
better wages and working conditions.
  I am also worried the message we're sending to these countries is: 
Yes, there is going to be economic expansion and there is going to be 
more trade, but the only way you can get the foreign investment is if 
you agree to work for less than 50 cents an hour.
  Again, I will give some figures. CBI countries with the fastest 
export growth to the United States have also experienced the sharpest 
decline in wages in the region. Maybe my colleagues can explain to me 
why this is the case.
  Over the last 10 years, in Honduras: Apparel imports from Honduras 
exploded 2,523 percent. Yet for the same 10 years, the wages in 
Honduras declined by 59 percent.
  In El Salvador: Apparel exports to the United States have increased 
2,512 percent, while wages have decreased 27 percent.
  In contrast, Jamaica's export growth has been less impressive, 
culminating in an actual 17 percent decline over the past year. One 
explanation is that Jamaica's high rate of unionization has ensured 
that workers' wages have increased.
  So here is the message. May I simply say to my colleagues why 
enforceable IOL standards are important: The basic right to be able to 
organize and not wind up in prison; the basic right to be able to 
bargain collectively and not wind up in prison. It is because if we do 
not have enforceable labor standards--and we do not in this trade 
legislation right now, and this amendment puts enforceable labor 
standards into this legislation--then we are saying to workers in our 
States: You had better not ask for more by way of wages. You had better 
not be too assertive for yourselves or your families because we'll just 
go to these CBI countries and we'll pay 50 cents an hour or less.
  What it says to the workers in these countries--and I just gave you 
some aggregate data--is: By the way, we're not going to guarantee your 
right to organize. We're not going to guarantee any fair labor 
standards. We're not going to guarantee any IOL standards that will be 
enforceable. Therefore, the only way you get the investment is if 
you're willing to work under sweatshop conditions.
  As a matter of fact, in the CBI countries, their growth in exports to 
our country has been unbelievable--dramatic growth--but the wages have 
declined. The only country where that has not happened is Jamaica, 
which is a country where there has been unionization. So the message 
is: You don't get the trade, you don't get the investment, if you dare 
to unionize.
  I say to colleagues, there are many articles, many testimonies, and 
there is a GAO report which shows that workers' rights have not been 
respected and are not respected in Central America, Haiti, and the 
Dominican Republic. I do not think my colleagues are going to argue 
with me on this. It seems the evidence is irrefutable on that point.
  Without this amendment, the CBI Parity bill is going to help defeat 
unionizing drives in our textile plants and American workers will 
compete with Caribbean apparel workers who are willing to work for 30 
cents an hour--23 cents an hour actually in Nicaragua, 80 cents an hour 
in Colombia. The United States apparel workers

[[Page S13736]]

make, on the average, $8.42, which is not a lot of money.
  There is a bitter irony: Many of these workers in U.S. textile plants 
are actually immigrants from these very same countries. A large number 
of them are poor, they barely make a living wage, they are women, they 
are minorities. Without this amendment, the CBI parity bill will merely 
encourage United States corporations to set up sweatshops in the 
Caribbean. My amendment is an anti-sweatshop amendment.
  To summarize, there ought to be enforceable labor standards. There 
are not any in this trade bill. Without enforceable labor standards, we 
are not on the side of human rights, we are not on the side of people 
in the CBI countries wanting to organize and to be able to do well for 
their families, and we are not on the side of wage earners in our 
country who are going to lose their jobs to workers in Honduras who 
work for 40 cents an hour.
  We ought to at least have enforceable IOL standards. That is exactly 
what this amendment speaks to.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for his 
remarks and tell him that he finds no difference of view among the 
managers of this legislation. We have a managers' amendment to address 
it.

  The large issue, sir, that has emerged in the context of the World 
Trade Organization is the relevance of the international labor 
conventions negotiated under the auspices of the International Labor 
Organization, which began here in Washington in 1919. The first were 
adopted at the Pan-American Union Building. The Offices of the ILO 
itself were provided by then-Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin 
D. Roosevelt.
  The problem is, at the time, these trade treaties--they were trade 
treaties--were designed to say, just as the Senator has said: If you, 
country X, have a minimum wage, and country Y does not, country Y will 
have trade advantages which will end up with employment in the original 
country. So do it together--improve labor standards together by means 
of international labor treaties. It is a principle.
  We did not, until now, have any transparency. There was no 
inspection--a new idea, a post-World War II idea--an important key 
idea. There was no ranking, no reporting. We are getting there. The 
International Labor Organization, in 1998, issued this wonderful 
document: ``ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at 
Work.'' And there they are, the four basic principles. We have a lot to 
do in this regard, but we have begun.
  So I congratulate the Senator. He is going to speak later and longer.
  I know the Senator from Montana, under some pressure of time, would 
like to speak now, as I understand it, on the most agreeable subject of 
why this is an important bill and why he voted for it in the Finance 
Committee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from 
Montana--I will be pleased to accommodate him--my understanding is that 
before we come to a final vote, there will be an opportunity for 
further discussion of this amendment. There are some additional 
comments I want to make, especially in response to the very helpful 
comments of the Senator.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. We understand that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was very 
disappointed last week when it appeared that we would not have a chance 
to act on this very important piece of legislation. I was disappointed 
for several reasons.
  First, because there's a lot more at stake here than the four basic 
elements of this bill: CBI, Africa Trade, TAA and GSP. All four are 
important, and I will say a few words about each one of them.
  But even more important is the signal that we send now. At the end of 
this month, the United States will host the World Trade Organization 
ministerial meeting in Seattle. The WTO writes and enforces the rules 
governing some $6 trillion in international trade. Delegations from 
over 130 nations will come participate in the meeting. They will launch 
a new global round of negotiations aimed at expanding trade.
  All of those delegations will have a common concern: Does the United 
States still intend to lead the world on trade? They will look at the 
way we deal with the trade bill before us as an indication of how they 
should answer that question.
  The signals we have sent them recently are not encouraging.
  First, we have failed to pass legislation granting negotiating 
authority to the U.S. Trade Representative. This undercuts our ability 
to persuade other nations to offer concessions, since we are not in a 
position to make credible offers.
  Second, the United States has not put forward the kind of visionary, 
far-reaching proposals needed at the onset of trade talks. Rather than 
leading the way forward, we seem to have adopted another strategy: 
offend the fewest number of people as possible.
  While we send these weak signals, other countries have moved into the 
breach to advance their own interests. The European Union and Japan 
mounted campaigns to paint us as foot-draggers on trade. They say that 
our proposals for trade negotiations are too narrow to allow for any 
real bargaining. They claim that they want to talk about the full range 
of trade issues, while we want to pull major portions of the trade 
system off the table.
  We know what they are really up to. They want to undercut the talks 
and make them drag on for years. That way they can avoid living up to 
their responsibilities on agriculture. Unfortunately, a number of 
countries are persuaded by the picture of America's trade policy that 
Europe and Japan are painting.
  This bill is the only opportunity the Senate will have before the 
Seattle meetings to show where America stands. It is vitally important 
that we pass this legislation to demonstrate our commitment to free 
market principles, and to open, fair trading system.
  Mr. President, I filed two amendments to the bill, both of them 
trade-related. Both of them are on issues which are extremely important 
to Americans. I was very disappointed that we were locked out of 
discussing them last week.
  One of the amendments allowed for tariff cuts on environmental goods 
as part of a global agreement in the WTO. The measure has the support 
of both business and environmental groups. This is a rare instance 
where both sides of the trade-environment debate agree on something. 
It's a shame that the Senate cannot move forward on something so 
sensible.

  The second amendment concerned agricultural subsidies. American 
farmers are the most productive in the world. But they're being frozen 
out of foreign markets by European and Japanese subsidies. I filed an 
amendment that would fight back by funding our Export Enhancement 
Program.
  This amendment required the Secretary of Agriculture to target at 
least two billion dollars in Export Enhancement Program funds into the 
EU's most sensitive markets if they fail to eliminate their export 
subsidies by 2003. It's time to start fighting fire with fire. This 
``GATT trigger'' should provide leverage in the next round of the WTO 
in reducing grossly distorted barriers to agricultural trade.
  In addition to these amendments, Mr. President, I also filed a 
resolution in the form of an amendment about another important trade 
issue: telecommunications. It calls on the Administration to continue 
to pursue efforts to open the Japanese telecommunications market. This 
is another example of how Japan must shoulder its responsibilities as a 
major trading nation. It cannot benefit from access to foreign markets 
unless its offers access to its home market. It's simply a question of 
fairness.
  Mr. President, I voted against cloture last week because I objected 
to the way the Majority Leader handled the bill. I was denied the 
ability to do what the people of Montana sent me here to do: debate and 
pass legislation. But I support the bill itself. I support each of its

[[Page S13737]]

elements--the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and the renewal of both Trade Adjustment Assistance 
and the Generalized System of Preferences.


                Caribbean Basin Parity Initiative (CBI)

  I have long supported efforts to extend additional tariffs 
preferences to the Caribbean Basin. But with conditions. The benefits 
should be conditioned on the beneficiary countries' trade policies, 
their participation and cooperation in the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas (``FTAA'') initiative, and other factors. This trade bill is 
substantially similar to the version I supported in the 105th Congress 
with some reservation.
  I see a flaw in this bill, however, and would like to work to repair 
it. The bill suggests criteria the President can use when deciding 
whether to grant CBI benefits. It is a long list of about a dozen 
items. Criteria like Intellectual Property Rights. Investment 
protections. Counter-narcotics. Each one is important. The bill should 
make these criteria mandatory.
  In particular, I believe that the President should be required to 
certify that CBI beneficiaries respect worker rights, both as a matter 
of law and in practice. We can't maintain domestic support for open 
trade here at home unless our programs take core labor standards into 
account.
  We want to help our Caribbean neighbors compete effectively in the 
U.S. market. But we don't want them to compete with U.S. firms by 
denying their own citizens fundamental worker rights.
  It only seems reasonable that as we help the economic development of 
these nations, we also help them enforce the laws already on their 
books. The majority of these countries already have the power and only 
need the will to ensure that their citizens see the benefits of 
enhanced trade--decent wages, decent hours and a decent life.
  Overall, I believe that CBI parity is the right thing to do--if it 
does what it is intended to do. That is lift the people of the 
hurricane devastated countries out of poverty and ensure them a better 
way of life.
  I also believe that the United States must lead by example. 
Sensitivity to labor and environment must play a role in our trade 
decisions and actions around the world.
  It's tragic that partisan politics keeps the United States Senate 
from taking these actions.


                   African Growth and Opportunity Act

  I have the same concerns about labor in terms of the African Growth 
and Opportunity portion of the bill. But I supported the Chairman's 
mark, which included a provision requiring U.S. fabric for apparel 
products produced in eligible sub-Saharan African countries.
  Developing markets is in the best interest of us all. And the trade 
bill would help Africa move in that direction. But this bill is about 
more than trade. It is about hope.
  It is about bringing the struggling nations of sub-Saharan Africa 
into our democratic system. It is about establishing stability and a 
framework wherein the citizens of these nations can enjoy the fruits of 
prosperity. It is about building a bridge between the United States and 
Africa that will be a model for all nations.


                      Trade Adjustment Assistance

  The third part of the bill renews the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program. We cannot expect to maintain a domestic consensus on trade if 
we fail to assist those who are adversely affected. For 37 years, this 
program helped Americans adjust to the forces of globalization.
  I would like to acknowledge Senator Moynihan, who originated this 
program, in another demonstration of his wisdom and foresight. I have 
seen the effects of this program in Montana. The renewal of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance translates to 330 Montana employees impacted and 
approximately $44 million in gross annual sales preserved.
  This legislation is long overdue. TAA authorization expired on June 
30. There are families who are displaced in the world economy, and they 
are living off this transitional benefit--200,000 eligible workers.
  While we delay, certified firms anxiously await funding. This is 
fundamentally unfair--especially for employees of firms fighting import 
competition that is beyond their control. They cannot afford to wait 
while TAA is caught up in the annual battle for funding as the 
``perennial bargaining chip'' for other trade proposals. That's just 
ineffective government. It's time to pass this legislation.


                   Generalized System of Preferences

  Finally, let me say a word about GSP renewal. This is the fourth part 
of the trade bill. This is also a question of effective government. 
Over the years, the program has lapsed periodically when renewal 
legislation was delayed. Like TAA, the latest lapse occurred on June 
30. Four months later, we still haven't acted on its renewal.
  Who gets hurt? Not just foreign companies. A lot of American firms 
get hurt. That includes both American importers and exporters. A lot of 
the American firms produce abroad and then export to the United States. 
Much of this is internal company trade. That's the reality of today's 
global economy.
  When GSP lapses, these companies are suddenly required to deposit 
import duties into an account. Customs holds the money until renewal 
legislation is signed. Eventually the companies get their money back. 
But they don't know how long renewal legislation will take. So they 
don't how much they'll have to set aside, or how long the money will be 
in escrow.
  How can we expect businesses to operate efficiently under such 
conditions? These cycles of GSP lapsing and then being renewed 
represent government at its worst. We have a responsibility to provide 
business and consumers with a consistent, predictable set of rules. We 
need to fix this GSP lapse as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, a lot of effort, a lot of thought, a lot of time has 
gone into this bill. Much time has also gone into formulating 
amendments. It was a great disappointment to see this effort unravel 
over partisan politics. We have a second chance this week. Let's not 
squander the opportunity. We can and should work together to pass this 
bill.
  We were elected to this body to pass legislation not to bicker. Let's 
do what the people sent us here to do.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to express the wish that 
every Member of the Senate will have heard, or will have read, the 
remarks of the Senator from Montana. There speaks the American voice. I 
trust it will be heard. Thanks to him, it will prevail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act and to discuss two amendments I hope to offer. I 
would like to begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member of 
the committee for their good work on this bill. Anyone who has spent 
time in Africa knows the poverty and environmental problems inherent on 
that continent. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, I believe, is 
the most hopeful vehicle for positive change that has come about. It 
opens the door to trade, investment, economic growth, and a higher 
quality of life for people of African nations. It will give Africans 
options and new abilities to build economically, to develop, to improve 
opportunities for trade worldwide, and to build new businesses on 
African and Caribbean soil.
  Sub-Saharan Africa is a market of some 700 million people. Yet less 
than 1 percent of our Nation's total trade is currently conducted with 
nations of this region. Expanding trade with this emerging market will 
help keep America competitive with Europe and Asia, who are already 
expanding their markets in the African nations. As the nations of sub-
Saharan African reform their economies to spur economic growth, U.S. 
exporters will have access to new and larger markets for their 
products. This, in the long run, creates and sustains American jobs.
  Just as important, this legislation contains provisions to support 
and encourage democracy and human rights in sub-Saharan Africa. A 
country is not eligible for trade and investment benefits if it engages 
in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and does 
not respect basic labor rights, such as the right to organize and 
bargain, the right of association, and acceptable working conditions.

[[Page S13738]]

Now, I recognize that those rights aren't as strong and enforceable as 
some might want. Nonetheless, they are the basic rights that are 
inherent in virtually every trade bill.
  Finally, as President Clinton noted, deepening our economic ties with 
these nations will also strengthen our cooperative efforts to address a 
host of transnational threats, such as environmental degradation, 
infectious disease, and illicit drug trafficking. I had intended to 
offer an amendment to address any potential impact this legislation 
might have on the domestic apparel industry of our Nation. The 
amendment I would have introduced would have created a tax credit of 30 
percent for the first $12,300 in the first year of employment, rising 
to 50 percent over 5 years for domestic garment and sewn manufacturers 
who hire a worker who is at or below the poverty line in this country. 
For an individual, that is $8,240; for a family of four, it is $16,700.
  However, both the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee have made it clear they don't believe tax credit amendments 
should be offered to this legislation, and I respect that. The offset 
we also had in mind, it turns out, has been utilized. However, the 
amendment has been scored. I will not offer this domestic textile 
worker tax credit amendment on this bill, though my intention is to 
offer it as a separate bill with an offset at a later time.
  I think this legislation would provide real incentive for domestic 
manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States, to hire American 
workers, and to keep them on the job. Moreover, by targeting the 
benefits to employees who, before being hired, are living at or below 
the poverty line, the amendment would also help move families off of 
welfare and public assistance and provide them good jobs in which they 
can support themselves and their families.

  My second amendment addresses the need for the United States to 
remain in the forefront of the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa.
  Mr. President, this bill inadvertently threatens to undermine the 
fight against AIDS in Africa. Approximately 34 million people, if you 
can believe it, in sub-Saharan Africa--that is the equivalent of the 
population of the State of California--are or have been infected with 
AIDS or HIV. And 11.5 million people of those infected have died--11.5 
million people. These fatalities comprise 83 percent of the world's 
total HIV/AIDS-related death. Eighty-three percent of the death from 
AIDS in the world are in the sub-Saharan African countries. So the 
impact of AIDS in Africa is huge. It continues to be a major threat to 
the well-being of the entire African Continent. Frankly, it even 
threatens the well-being of this legislation if it is left unaddressed.
  Unfortunately, this legislation carries with it intellectual property 
rights for the American pharmaceutical companies which prevent the 
licensing, manufacture, and sale of cheaper generic AIDS drugs. That is 
a practice known as ``compulsory licensing.''
  Without compulsory licensing, a practice fully consistent with 
international law, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS patients in Africa 
could not afford the more expensive drugs from American pharmaceutical 
companies and, thus, more will suffer and die simply without treatment. 
AIDS drugs in this country literally cost several hundred dollars a 
month. They must be taken several times a day regularly, and they often 
necessitate other drugs to ward off serious side effects of AIDS-
reducing drugs.
  The amendment I have authored, which is cosponsored by Senator 
Feingold, on which we have worked with the staff on both sides, and 
which we believe will be acceptable to both sides, draws on a provision 
in Senator Feingold's HOPE for Africa bill. It allows the countries of 
sub-Saharan Africa to pursue compulsory licensing by preventing the 
U.S. Government from enforcing one specific U.S. intellectual property 
right that, when implemented, would prevent the license, manufacture, 
and sale of generic AIDS drugs in Africa.
  For those of my colleagues who may be concerned that this amendment 
may undermine wider intellectual property rights, this amendment 
acknowledges the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade-related 
aspects of intellectual property and that that is the presumptive legal 
standard for intellectual property rights.
  The WTO, however, allows countries flexibility in addressing public 
health concerns, and the compulsory licensing process under this 
amendment is consistent with the WTO's balancing of intellectual 
property rights with the moral obligation to meet public health 
emergencies such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa.
  When 11 million people die of a single disease, it certainly deserves 
and merits this kind of consideration.
  In effect, this amendment will allow the countries of sub-Saharan 
Africa to continue to determine the availability of HIV/AIDS 
pharmaceuticals in their countries, and provide their people with more 
affordable HIV/AIDS drugs.
  It is clearly in the national interest of the United States to 
prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and I believe that 
this amendment is an important improvement to this legislation if we 
are to continue to assist the countries of the region to bring this 
deadly disease under control.
  I am pleased to support the African Growth and Opportunity Act and 
the Caribbean Basin Initiative because I believe they are both in the 
national interest of this country.
  I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their support of 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the amendment of the Senator from California to the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act. First, let me thank Senator Feinstein for 
her leadership on this critical issue. This very provision is 
incorporated in my own HOPE for Africa bill, S. 1636, and I am 
especially pleased she is offering that language as an amendment to 
this bill today.
  AGOA's aim is to strengthen economic ties between the United States 
and the diverse states of sub-Saharan Africa, fostering economic 
development and mutually beneficial growth. I think that we can all 
agree that this is a worthy goal. The disagreement is about how we get 
from here to there.
  It is my belief that no U.S.-Africa trade bill will succeed unless it 
addresses the underlying context for growth and development in Africa. 
The United States needs to pass legislation that will help set the 
stage for a real economic partnership.
  The Feinstein-Feingold amendment is a good start because it is 
impossible to address Africa's economic and social development problems 
without taking serious action to combat the region's HIV/AIDs epidemic.
  In 1998, four out of every five HIV/AIDs-related deaths occurred in 
sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, HIV/AIDS kills over 5,000 Africans each 
day.
  Common decency tells us that this is a humanitarian catastrophe. 
Basic logic also tells us that it is economically devastating.
  AIDS attacks the most productive segment of society--the young adults 
who would otherwise be the engine in Africa's economy. And it leaves 
far too many children orphaned, preparing to take their place in 
society without the guidance and security that their parents would have 
provided.
  And the health-care costs associated with AIDS are astronomical. 
Life-savings medications can cost $12,000 per year--an impossible 
burden in countries where average per-capita annual income often barely 
exceed $1,000.
  How can the United States expect to find a strong economic partner in 
Africa if it ignores these facts?
  This amendment does not hide from these realities. It approaches them 
head-on, by prohibiting U.S. funds from being used to change the 
intellectual property laws of African states.
  That means that taxpayer dollars will not be spent to help 
pharmaceutical companies undermine the legal efforts of some African 
states to gain and retain access to lower cost pharmaceuticals.
  It is important to be clear--this amendment does not allow African 
states to ``get away with something.'' It explicitly refers to the 
legal means by which these countries are entitled to address their 
public health emergencies.
  These legal methods, which are permitted under the agreement on Trade 
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, or TRIPS, lower prices for 
consumers by creating competition in the

[[Page S13739]]

market for patented goods through a procedure called compulsory 
licensing. TRIPS is an agreement administered by the World Trade 
Organization.
  Compulsory licensing does not ignore the rights of patent-holders. 
Pharmaceutical companies holding patents on HIV/AIDS drugs are paid a 
royalty under these arrangements.
  This amendment simply prohibits the United States from spending money 
to undermine an entirely legal fight for survival that is being waged 
in Africa today.
  It is legal. It is the right thing to do. And ultimately, it is in 
America's interest, as healthier African people will undoubtedly lead 
to healthier African economies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from California. She seeks to address a most 
critical problem, one that is unbelievable, as she pointed out, with 11 
million a year dying from this disease.
  We have been working. We expect to come together on an amendment that 
will be acceptable to both sides.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman very much. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan 
Greenspan has said numerous times that increased trade has raised the 
standard of living and the quality of life for almost all countries 
involved in trade, and especially the quality of life in our own 
country. Chairman Greenspan believes the No. 1 benefit of trade is not 
simply jobs but an enhanced standard of living. I can think of no more 
important enhancement to the standard of living of America's hardest 
pressed working families than to increase the minimum wage. Surely, it 
is appropriate to send a message on this legislation that increased 
trade must definitely mean a better quality of life for the working 
poor.
  I had hoped to offer an amendment to this bill to raise the minimum 
wage. Regrettably, it was perhaps the only vehicle that was going to be 
left in this year of this particular session. But the majority leader's 
actions prevented me from doing that. This trade bill has been offered 
to enhance the standard of living for workers in Africa and the 
Caribbean. I am certainly in favor of that. But there are honest 
disagreements as to whether the proposal before us effectively does so.
  While we express our concern for the workers in these nations, we 
cannot forget the workers in our own country. I believe the American 
people will hold this Congress responsible for refusing to address so 
many issues which are critical to our families and our communities, and 
the majority, I believe, has once again turned a deaf ear to the pleas 
of the American people for action. I regret this latest missed 
opportunity.
  I take this opportunity as we are coming into the final days of this 
congressional year to express what I know has to be the frustration of 
about 12 million Americans who had hoped this Congress would have 
raised the minimum wage, or at least had the opportunity to debate this 
issue and discuss this issue and consider this issue during this past 
summer, or this past fall, or even prior to the time that we were going 
to go into recess. But we have been denied the opportunity to do so. 
Every legislative possibility has been excluded from us doing so up to 
this time, and even excluded on this piece of legislation.
  I join with all of those who share this enormous frustration and a 
certain amount of disgust at the way this issue is being treated as we 
are moving into these final days.
  We now have seen some modification or adjustment to prior positions 
of opposition to any increase in the minimum wage which had been 
expressed by the Republican leadership in the House and also in the 
Senate. Now, evidently, there is a bidding war in the House of 
Representatives--hopefully, it won't take place in the Senate, but 
certainly in the House of Representatives--about not what we can do for 
the working poor but how many additional tax breaks we can add on to 
the minimum wage when we consider it in the House of Representatives.
  If we extend the minimum wage over a longer period of time, for some 
3 years, actually the benefits that special interests would receive by 
the tax considerations, which in the House position would reach $100 
billion over 10 years, which isn't paid for, the only way you could 
assume they could be paid for would be out of Social Security because 
it is not paid for--and the bidding war wants to keep adding that until 
finally, evidently, the financial interests, which are the most opposed 
to any increase in the minimum wage, would finally say: All right, 
let's go ahead because the benefits we are going to receive so exceed 
and outweigh the modest increase in the increase in the minimum wage 
that it is worthwhile.
  As we are coming to the end of this session, we are finding that this 
Senate refuses to address an issue which cries out for fairness and 
decency as the minimum wage slips further and further back for working 
families at the lower end of the economic ladder, who are in many 
instances doing such important work as teachers aides in the classrooms 
of this country, are doing important work in nursing homes and looking 
after the elderly people, or working in the great buildings of this 
country at nighttime in order to clean them so the American economy and 
efficiency can continue during the course of the day, that we have 
decided in this body evidently that we are going to leave this session 
granting ourselves a $4,600 pay increase and denying a one dollar-an-
hour pay increase for over 11 million of our fellow citizens who are 
working at the lower rung of the economic ladder. That is not right. 
That is not fair. That is wrong.

  We ask ourselves: Why should this be the case? Certainly we have not 
heard those who have resisted us in bringing this matter to the floor 
make the economic argument that, well, this will mean an increase in 
the numbers of unemployed Americans. They haven't been willing to make 
that. They have made it at other times, and it was so totally refuted 
during the last increases in the minimum wage that they evidently are 
not prepared to come out and debate that issue.
  The other argument, that it was going to be an inflator in terms of 
our general economy, has been refuted completely, as a practical 
matter. The last time we raised the minimum wage it was demonstrated 
effectively that there was virtually no increase in the cost of living. 
We are denied the opportunity of even hearing a well thought out 
argument for opposing the minimum wage. All we hear is the same, tired, 
old arguments that have been disproved time in and time out.
  What we see as a result is that without the increase in the minimum 
wage, there is a continued deterioration in the purchasing power of the 
minimum-wage workers. Even without the minimum wage, if we did not 
consider it until even 2000 or 2001, we would be back to $4.80 an hour, 
close to the lowest point in the last 40 years of minimum wage, at a 
time of unprecedented economic prosperity for everyone except those at 
the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
  We will not even debate the issue. If Members want to vote against 
it, they can do so, but why deny Members the opportunity to debate the 
issue and take the time on this particular measure? Members cannot make 
the argument that it will take a lot of time after what we have gone 
through in the past days where, effectively, from a parliamentary point 
of view, we were in a stalemate in the Senate without any amendments 
being even considered on the trade bill for a number of days.
  We could have dealt with this issue in a matter of hours. We are 
certainly prepared to deal with this issue in a relatively short time 
period--a few hours if necessary. Obviously, the majority, the 
Republicans, retain their rights in terms of a very modest increase in 
the minimum wage, 50 cents next year and 50 cents the following year. 
That is too high for our Republican friends. We can debate that and at 
least have the Senate work its will. The position taken by the 
Republican leadership on the other side has been, if we are going to 
extend it, they will deny us the opportunity to bring the minimum wage 
up this year. If we bring it up at the end of the session, we will put 
it, effectively, well into next year and carry it on to the following 
year, which will extend it perhaps $1.00 over 5 years.

[[Page S13740]]

  Still, we will carry on the tax goodies which, over a 10-year period 
in the proposal recommended by the Republican leadership, will be $100 
billion in tax breaks for the special interests. That is what is 
happening. That is what is so unacceptable.
  This morning, there was an excellent editorial in the Washington 
Post, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 3, 1999]

                        The Minimum Wage Squeeze

       The minimum wage should be increased, and the increase 
     should not become a political football. Unfortunately, there 
     is more than a little risk that it will become a football in 
     the remaining days of the session.
       The wage, now $5.15 an hour, was last increased in 1997. 
     The president has proposed taking it up another dollar an 
     hour: 50 cents next Jan. 1 and 50 cents a year thereafter. 
     Republicans and some Democrats would spread the increase over 
     an additional year. That's something reasonable people can 
     disagree about. The wage ought not be allowed to lose ground 
     to inflation, and perhaps in real terms ought to be a set 
     higher than it has been in recent years, though the 
     government powerfully supplements it with the earned-income 
     tax credit, food stamps and other benefits.
       The wage itself, however, has become almost a secondary 
     issue. Those sponsoring a slower increase also want to use 
     the bill as a vehicle for some of the tax cuts the president 
     vetoed earlier in the year. Ostensibly, these are to make 
     whole the smaller businesses that would have to pay the 
     higher wage. But the data suggest that little of the benefit 
     would go to such employers. These are costly cuts in the 
     estate tax, tax treatment of pension set-asides, etc., that 
     would mainly go to people of very high income. No provision 
     is made to offset the costs, which tend to be understated in 
     that early on they would be relatively low and only later 
     begin to rise.
       The president has rightly threatened, mainly on these 
     fiscal grounds, to veto the bill. It may well be that the 
     bill will have to include some tax relief to pass, but the 
     relief should be targeted and paid for. The gatekeepers seek 
     too heavy a toll. The price of a bill to help the working 
     poor ought not be an indiscriminate tax cut for those at the 
     very top of the economic mountain.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This article reminds everyone how the interests of some 
of the hardest working Americans are being toyed with by the Republican 
leadership. They say maybe we will add a little more in terms of tax 
breaks if we consider the increase in the minimum wage.
  This increase is a matter of enormous importance and consequence for 
the people receiving it. Sixty percent are women; over 75 percent of 
minimum wage workers heading up families are women. It is an issue in 
terms of children. It is a family issue. It is an issue relating to men 
and women of color since one-third of those who receive the minimum 
wage are men and women of color. It is a civil rights issue, a family 
issue, a children's issue, a women's issue. It is a fairness issue. Yet 
we are denied it.
  How quickly this institution went ahead with a $4,600-per-year 
increase for their pay while denying this side the opportunity to vote 
on 50 cents an hour over each of the next two years for the minimum-
wage worker, an increase of $2,000 a year for people working at the 
lower end of the economic ladder. Yet, $4,600 for the Members of 
Congress.
  It is wrong to play with the life and the well-being of these 
workers. They are being toyed with by considering how much in 
additional tax breaks we will provide for special interests. That is 
what the bidding is that is going on. It is not the Congress or 
leadership acting in these workers' best interest.
  What does $2,000 mean to a minimum-wage family? The two increments, 
of 50 cents each, mean 7 months' of grocery. That means a lot to a 
family. It is 5 months of rent. It is 10 months of utilities. It is 18 
months of tuition and fees at a 2-year college for a family of four 
living on the minimum wage.
  While many parts of our country have experienced the economic boom, 
we have found another very important area of need for minimum-wage 
workers: Housing. In so many areas of this country, the housing costs 
have gone off the chart and are virtually out of the reach of the 
minimum-wage workers. The hours a minimum-wage worker would have to 
work in Boston for a one-room apartment--100 a week. It is absolutely 
impossible to understand why we are not dealing with this issue.
  This chart/table shows what happened when we had the increase in the 
minimum wage in 1996 and 1997. The unemployment rates continued to go 
down. This is true in the industry that has expressed the greatest 
reservation about a minimum-wage increase, the restaurant industry. 
They have increased their total workers by 400,000 over the period 
since the last increase in the minimum wage. They are out here day in 
and day out trying to undermine and lobby against the increase in the 
minimum wage.
  This is not just an issue in which Democrats are interested, although 
we are interested in and we are committed to it. I daresay if we had a 
vote on an increase in the minimum wage, the way we have identified it, 
we would get virtually every member of our party and perhaps a few 
courageous Republicans as well.
  This is what Business Week says about the increase in the minimum 
wage:

       Old myths die hard. Old economic theories die even harder . 
     . . higher minimum wages are supposed to lead to fewer jobs. 
     Not today. In a fast-growth, low-inflation economy, higher 
     minimum wages raise income, not unemployment.

  This is from Business Week--not a labor organization, although they 
would agree--from Business Week, which understands it. They have 
probably reviewed carefully what happened in the State of Oregon that 
now has the highest minimum wage with the largest growth rate in terms 
of reduction of unemployment when they introduced the minimum wage. 
Why? Because people not working went into the labor market, it created 
more economic activity, and they paid more in taxes. The whole economy 
moved along together. We are glad to debate it if people want to 
dispute that.
  What does this mean in people's lives?
  Melissa Albis lives in North Adams, MA. She works for the local 
Burger King for $5.25 an hour. She has five children all under 12. She 
is struggling to pay her $550-a-month rent and is looking for less 
expensive housing because she fears she and her children will be 
evicted if she cannot earn more.
  Cathi Zeman, 52 years old, works at the Rite Aid in Canonsburg, PA, a 
town near Pittsburgh. She earns $5.68 an hour: Base pay of $5.43, plus 
.25 for being a ``key carrier.'' Her husband has a heart condition and 
is only able to work sporadically, so she is the primary earner in her 
family. An increase in minimum wage means a lot to Cathi.
  Shirley Briggs is a senior citizen living near Williamstown, MA. Her 
husband passed away in 1982, and even though she has arthritis, she 
works for $5.50 an hour to try to make ends meet. Even with supplement 
income and Social Security, she has trouble paying for medicine. ``My 
income is not enough to live.'' Minimum wage means a lot to Shirley.
  Dianne Mitchell testified in June 1998 that she made $5.90 an hour at 
a laundry in Brockton, MA. For Dianne, with three daughters and a 
granddaughter, living on minimum wage is nervewracking. She is ``always 
juggling food and utilities,'' even having to choose one over the 
other. An increase in the minimum wage would give women like Dianne 
peace of mind--they could provide for their families.
  Cordelia Bradley testified at a Senate forum last year she was 
working at a clothing chain store outside of Philadelphia. She and her 
son lived in a rented room for $300 a month. She hoped to have her own 
apartment, but at the current minimum wage that goal was out of reach.
  Kimberly Frazier, also from Philadelphia, testified she was a full-
time child care aide earning $5.20. A child care aide, how many times 
are we going to hear long speeches about children and looking out for 
children; children are our future; we need to do more caring for 
children. Kimberly Frazier is earning $5.20 an hour as a full-time 
child care aide. With three children, her pay barely covers the bills 
for rent, food, utilities, and clothes for her children. For Kimberly 
and her family, a pay increase of $1 an hour could make a real 
difference.
  This is enormously important to individuals. Republicans want to see 
how little they can do for the workers, and how much, evidently, they 
can do for the corporations and special interests. You cannot look at 
the conduct of leadership in these last 4 weeks and not

[[Page S13741]]

understand that is what is happening. The workers are being nickled and 
dimed. This is absolutely unacceptable.
  We are going to continue. The days are going down, the hours are 
going down, but we are resolute in our determination, and we are not 
going to have a bidding war out here on the floor of the Senate on this 
issue. We are not going to permit the toying with the lives of American 
workers who are playing by the rules, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks 
a year, who want to provide for their children. They should not have to 
live in poverty in the United States of America. By denying us the 
opportunity to do something about this, the leadership, Republican 
leadership, is denying us a chance to deal with that issue, and it is 
fundamentally and basically wrong.
  I will speak just briefly on another matter.
  In passing the Norwood-Dingell bill, a large bipartisan majority in 
the House voted for strong patient protections against abuses by HMOs. 
Despite an extraordinary lobbying and disinformation campaign by the 
health insurance industry, the House approved the bill by a solid 
majority of 275 to 151. Mr. President, 68 Republicans as well as almost 
every Democrat in the House stood up for patients and stood up against 
industry pressure.
  Now the insurance industry and its friends in the Republican 
leadership are at it again. Their emerging strategy is, once again, to 
delay and deny relief that American families need and that the House 
overwhelmingly approved. Every indication is that the intention of the 
Republican leadership is to see that this legislation, as it passed the 
House of Representatives, will not reach the President for his 
signature.
  According to the Los Angeles Times, Senator Lott's response to the 
passage of the House bill is that the House-Senate conferences on other 
legislation have a higher priority and resolving the differences on 
this bill will take some time.
  According to the Baltimore Sun, Senator Lott also indicated Congress 
might not have the time to work out differences or approve a final bill 
before it adjourns for the year. Senator Nickles said the conference 
committee will probably not begin serious work until early next year.
  I say: Why don't we consider the House bill--the bill that passed the 
House overwhelmingly with 68 Republicans--a bipartisan bill with 
Democrats and Republicans working together? Why don't we pass that in 
the Senate this afternoon? We could do that. I certainly urge that we 
go ahead and do that today. Every day we fail to pass the Patients' 
Bill of Rights, we are permitting insurance company accountants to make 
medical decisions that doctors and nurses and other trained medical 
personnel should have the opportunity to make. That is why the 
Patients' Bill of Rights is so important.

  We believe that medical professionals, trained, dedicated and 
committed to their patients, should make those decisions, not 
accountants. This chart shows what we will see as long as we permit 
accountants to make health care decisions. We are going to see about 
35,000 patients every single day will have needed care delayed. 
Specialty referrals will be denied to 35,000 patients. It may be that a 
child with cancer will see a pediatrician but doesn't get the necessary 
referral to see a pediatric oncologist. Mr. President, 31,000 patients 
are forced to change doctors every day; 18,000 are forced to change 
medication because the HMOs refused to reimburse the medicine their 
physician prescribed. The final result is that 59,000 Americans every 
day experience unnecessary added pain and suffering; 41,000 Americans 
see their conditions worsen every day that we fail to act.
  We still have time to act in the final days of this session. 
Republicans are beginning to lay the groundwork for a failed 
conference. Comparing the Senate and House bills, Congressman Bill 
Thomas says you don't see many crossbreeds between Chihuahuas and Great 
Danes walking around. That is quite a quote--we don't see many 
crossbreeds between Chihuahuas and Great Danes walking around.
  I say, let's do what every health care professional organization in 
the United States has urged us to do, and pass the House bill. I am 
still waiting for the other side to list one major or minor health 
organization that supports their proposal: Zero, none, none. Every one 
of them--every doctors' organization, patients' organization, nursing 
organization, children's organization, women's health organization, 
consumer organization--supports our proposal.
  Here is how Bruce Johnston of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put it:

       To see nothing come out of the conference is my hope. The 
     best outcome is no outcome. But if the strategy of delay and 
     denial ultimately breaks down, the Republican leadership once 
     again has an alternative to try to weaken the House bill as 
     much as possible.

  As the Baltimore Sun reported:

       The House majority whip suggested the Republican-dominated 
     House conference would not fight vigorously for the House-
     approved measure in the conference committee. Mr. DeLay said, 
     ``Remember who controls the conference: the Speaker of the 
     House.''

  That ought to give a lot of satisfaction to parents who are concerned 
about health care for their children. It ought to give a lot of 
satisfaction to the doctors who are trying to provide the best health 
care. This is what the House majority whip suggested: Remember who 
controls the conference: the Speaker of the House--unalterably opposed 
to the program.
  The conference that produces legislation that looks like the Senate 
Republican bill will break faith with the American people, make a 
mockery of the overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives, and 
cause unnecessary suffering for millions of patients. Every day we 
delay in passing meaningful reforms means more patients will suffer and 
die.
  Finally, I do not think, when we consider minimum wage and consider 
health, we have addressed these issues in the last few days. These are 
the matters about which most families are concerned. These are the 
issues they want addressed. The Republican leadership is considering 
what they will do on the bankruptcy issue. We have seen great economic 
prosperity. Do you know who is going bankrupt, by and large? It is the 
men and women who have lost out in the mergers, the supermergers that 
have brought extraordinary wealth and accumulation of wealth to 
individual stockholders. It is families who have had to pay increased 
costs for prescription drugs. It is women who are not receiving their 
alimony payments or women who are not getting child care support--there 
are some 400,000 of them. These are the individuals who are going into 
bankruptcy. Their needs should be protected.

  We have to ask ourselves, if we are going to call bankruptcy up, why 
aren't we dealing with minimum wage? Why aren't we working on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights? Why are we not coming to grips with these 
issues, which are at the center of every working family's hopes and 
dreams.
  In the months since the House passed the Norwood-Dingell bill and the 
Republican leadership has failed to allow a conference to proceed, 1 
million patients have had needed care delayed; 1 million patients have 
been denied or delayed referral to a specialist; 940,000 patients have 
been forced to change doctors; more than 535,000 patients have been 
forced to change medication; Mr. President, 1.8 million patients have 
experienced added pain and suffering as a result of health plan abuses, 
and 1.2 million patients have seen their conditions worsen because of 
health plan abuses.
  In the final days of this Congress, we can still take some important 
steps that will have a direct impact on the well-being of families who 
are at the lower end of the economic ladder. We can still take 
important steps that will have a direct impact on families who are 
faced with health care challenges. We can have a positive impact. We 
have had the hearings. We have had the debates. We have had the 
deliberations. All we need is to have the vote the way the House of 
Representatives had the vote. We can pass what has been a bipartisan 
bill in the House of Representatives in a matter of a few short hours.
  The Republican leadership has waited a month since the House bill was 
passed to start this conference, effectively pushing action to next 
February at the earliest. Today is another litmus test of their 
intention with the appointment of House conferees. We expect those 
conferees to be stacked against meaningful reform.
  We are prepared to participate in a fair conference, and we are 
willing to

[[Page S13742]]

enter into a reasonable compromise, but we are sending notice today 
that we will not tolerate a charade designed only to protect insurance 
company profits while patients continue to suffer. We will come back to 
this issue over and over until the American people prevail.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2408

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to very much thank the 
chairman and manager of the bill for accepting amendment No. 2408, 
which I offered and was cosponsored by Senator Durbin of Illinois, with 
regard to anticorruption efforts and the desire to do something about 
the fact that bribery is an important problem worldwide. It poisons the 
business environment and distorts the normal practices of the 
marketplace. Bribery undermines democracy and leads to a lower global 
economy, and when corruption goes unchecked, everybody loses.
  To pass the U.S. trade package without addressing corruption simply 
doesn't make sense, particularly if the package claims to actually 
promote growth and opportunity in Africa. Of the 16 sub-Saharan African 
states rated in the Transparency International 1999 Corruption 
Perception Index, 12 ranked in the bottom half.
  The amendment Senator Durbin and I have offered expresses a sense of 
Congress that the United States should encourage the accession of sub-
Saharan African companies to the OECD Convention combating bribery of 
foreign officials in international business transactions. The OECD 
Convention criminalizes bribery of foreign officials to influence or 
retain business. Some have had said OECD standards are too demanding 
for the developing economies of Africa. But if we are going to engage 
in a new economic partnership with Africa, I think we need to leave 
this double standard behind. Transparency, integrity, and the rule of 
law are as important in Mali and Botswana as they are right here at 
home.
  Ever since Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, 
under the leadership of one of my predecessors, Senator William 
Proxmire of Wisconsin, we have shared a consensus in this country that 
economic relations depend upon a foundation of fair play. This 
amendment incorporates that reality in African trade regulations. This 
anticorruption amendment also sends an important signal. It tells sub-
Saharan states that responsibilities come with benefits in any trade 
partnership. If this Congress is serious about engaging Africa 
economically, we have to make these responsibilities crystal clear.
  I, again, thank the Chair for accepting this amendment. I also 
commend Senator Durbin, who has taken the lead--and I joined him--on 
another amendment having to do with this corruption issue. I am hopeful 
and optimistic that item will be accepted as well.
  We have provided two different important provisions that will move 
forward with regard to the corruption problem in general and 
specifically with regard to the African nations.


                           Amendment No. 2409

(Purpose: To establish priorities for providing development assistance)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with regard to amendment No. 2409, I 
urge Members to look at the Statement of Policy in the text of the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act. In this section the bill asserts 
congressional support for a series of noble causes, such as supporting 
the development of civil societies and political freedom in the region, 
and focusing on countries committed to accountable government and the 
eradication of poverty.

  But then those causes seem to disappear. The implication is that the 
United States plans to support for these worthy goals--goals that are 
in our own self-interest--through a series of limited trade benefits.
  Nowhere does AGOA mention the role that development assistance plays 
in pursuing the very ends that it advocates--the eradication of poverty 
and the development of civil society.
  This omission sends an alarming signal. It suggests that the United 
States may delude itself into thinking that trade alone will stimulate 
African development.
  Trade alone cannot address the crippling effects of the HIV/AIDS 
epidemic, which has lowered life expectancies by as much as seventeen 
years in some African countries. Striking at the most productive 
segment of society--young adults--HIV/AIDS has dealt a brutal blow to 
African economic development, and has left a generation of orphans in 
its wake.
  And trade alone will not provide sufficient access to education or to 
reproductive health services for African women--yet both elements are 
crucial to developing Africa's human resources.
  This amendment expresses a sense of Congress that the HIV/AIDS 
epidemic and chronic food insecurity should be key priorities in U.S. 
assistance to Africa. It also prioritizes voluntary family planning 
services, including access to prenatal healthcare; education and 
vocational training, particularly for women; and programs designed to 
develop income-generating opportunities, such as micro-credit projects.
  This amendment also mandates that the Development Fund for Africa be 
re-established for aid authorized specifically for African-related 
objectives. The DFA allows USAID more flexibility in its Africa 
program. Perhaps most importantly, it is symbolic of U.S. commitment to 
African development.
  In addition, my amendment requires USAID to submit a report to help 
the United States to get smarter about how it administers development 
assistance, and will ensure that our assistance fosters dynamic civil 
societies across the diverse nations of Africa.
  This amendment sends an important signal. Even as the United States 
considers closer trade relations with sub-Saharan Africa, this country 
will not abandon its commitment to responsible and well-monitored 
development assistance.
  Mr. President, I understand that a point of order is likely to be 
raised to this amendment. I understand the consequence of that. But I 
want to offer the amendment. I call up amendment No. 2409.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2409.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:

   TITLE __--DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES

     SEC. __01. FINDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In addition to drought and famine, the HIV/AIDS 
     epidemic has caused countless deaths and untold suffering 
     among the people of sub-Saharan Africa.
       (2) The Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that 
     543,000,000 people, representing nearly 40 percent of the 
     population of sub-Saharan Africa, are chronically 
     undernourished.
       (b) Amendment to Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Section 
     496(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2293(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``drought and famine'' and 
     inserting ``drought, famine, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic''.

     SEC. __02. PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 496(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2293(e)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Capacity building.--In addition to assistance 
     provided under subsection (h), the United States Agency for 
     International Development shall provide capacity building 
     assistance through participatory planning to private and 
     voluntary organizations that are involved in providing 
     assistance for sub-Saharan Africa under this chapter.''.

     SEC. __03. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.

       Section 496(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2293(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Prohibition on military assistance.--Assistance under 
     this section--
       ``(A) may not include military training or weapons; and

[[Page S13743]]

       ``(B) may not be obligated or expended for military 
     training or the procurement of weapons.''.

     SEC. __04. CRITICAL SECTORAL PRIORITIES.

       (a) Agriculture, Food Security and Natural Resources.--
     Section 496(i)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2293(i)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, to read as follows:
       ``(1) Agriculture, food security and natural resources.--
     '';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the heading, to read as follows:
       ``(A) Agriculture and food security.--'';
       (B) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``agricultural production in ways'' and 
     inserting ``food security by promoting agriculture 
     policies''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, especially food production,''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``agricultural production'' and inserting 
     ``food security and sustainable resource use''.
       (b) Health.--Section 496(i)(2) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(i)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``(including displaced children)'' and inserting ``(including 
     displaced children and improving HIV/AIDS prevention and 
     treatment programs)''.
       (c) Voluntary Family Planning Services.--Section 496(i)(3) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(i)(3)) 
     is amended by adding at the end before the period the 
     following: ``and access to prenatal healthcare''.
       (d) Education.--Section 496(i)(4) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(i)(4)) is amended by adding at 
     the end before the period the following: ``and vocational 
     education, with particular emphasis on primary education and 
     vocational education for women''.
       (e) Income-Generating Opportunities.--Section 496(i)(5) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2293(i)(5)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``labor-intensive''; and
       (2) by adding at the end before the period the following: 
     ``, including development of manufacturing and processing 
     industries and microcredit projects''.

     SEC. __05. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 496 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2293) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Reporting Requirements.--The Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development shall, on 
     a semiannual basis, prepare and submit to Congress a report 
     containing--
       ``(1) a description of how, and the extent to which, the 
     Agency has consulted with nongovernmental organizations in 
     sub-Saharan Africa regarding the use of amounts made 
     available for sub-Saharan African countries under this 
     chapter;
       ``(2) the extent to which the provision of such amounts has 
     been successful in increasing food security and access to 
     health and education services among the people of sub-Saharan 
     Africa;
       ``(3) the extent to which the provision of such amounts has 
     been successful in capacity building among local 
     nongovernmental organizations; and
       ``(4) a description of how, and the extent to which, the 
     provision of such amounts has furthered the goals of 
     sustainable economic and agricultural development, gender 
     equity, environmental protection, and respect for workers' 
     rights in sub-Saharan Africa.''.

     SEC. __06. SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR AFRICA.

       Amounts appropriated to the Development Fund for Africa 
     shall be appropriated to a separate account under the heading 
     ``Development Fund for Africa'' and not to the account under 
     the heading ``Development Assistance''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I object to this amendment on the grounds 
that the Senator's amendment is inconsistent with the unanimous consent 
setting the terms of this debate. I appreciate the distinguished 
Senator's interest in this matter.
  I make a point of order the amendment is not within the jurisdiction 
of the Finance Committee. It seems to me the appropriate place to 
debate this is in the context of the foreign operations appropriations 
bill or a foreign relations bill. For these reasons, I urge my friend 
to withdraw this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the concerns raised by the chairman, I will 
withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. ROTH. On the first matter dealing with the anticorruption, we are 
in agreement. I congratulate and thank the Senator for his leadership 
in this matter. Because of his interest, as well as others, we are 
including a specific anticorruption provision in the managers' 
amendment.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for his cooperation.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Wellstone 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may proceed with another 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2347, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am sending an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Byrd, Senator Hatch, Senator Hollings, Senator Helms, 
Senator Santorum, and myself relating to a private right of action. I 
ask it be immediately considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am informed by the Parliamentarian the 
Senator can only call up an amendment that has been filed.
  Mr. SPECTER. This amendment has been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator have the number?
  Mr. ROTH. I give the Senator permission to make modifications, if 
that is necessary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I have discussed with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, it is amendment No. 2347. 
There have been two minor changes made which I have discussed with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notifies the Senator it takes a 
unanimous consent to modify the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment. The 
modifications are minor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2347), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:

TITLE __--PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DUMPED AND SUBSIDIZED MERCHANDISE

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Unfair Foreign Competition 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. __02. PRIVATE ACTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM UNFAIR FOREIGN 
                   COMPETITION.

       (a) Action for Dumping Violations.--Section 801 of the Act 
     of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 798; 15 U.S.C. 72) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 801. IMPORTATION OR SALE OF ARTICLES AT LESS THAN 
                   FOREIGN MARKET VALUE OR CONSTRUCTED VALUE.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--No person shall import into, or sell 
     within, the United States an article manufactured or produced 
     in a foreign country if--
       ``(1) the article is imported or sold within the United 
     States at a United States price that is less than the foreign 
     market value or constructed value of the article; and
       ``(2) the importation or sale--
       ``(A) causes or threatens to cause material injury to 
     industry or labor in the United States; or
       ``(B) prevents, in whole or in part, the establishment or 
     modernization of any industry in the United States.
       ``(b) Civil Action.--An interested party whose business or 
     property is injured by reason of an importation or sale of an 
     article in violation of this section may bring a civil action 
     in the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit against any person who--
       ``(1) manufactures, produces, or exports the article; or
       ``(2) imports the article into the United States if the 
     person is related to the manufacturer or exporter of the 
     article.
       ``(c) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon an affirmative determination by the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit in an action brought under subsection (b), the court 
     shall issue an order that includes a description of the 
     subject article in such detail as the court deems necessary 
     and shall--
       ``(A) direct the Customs Service to assess an antidumping 
     duty on the article covered by the determination in 
     accordance with section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1673e); and
       ``(B) require the deposit of estimated antidumping duties 
     pending liquidation of entries of the article at the same 
     time as estimated normal customs duties on that article are 
     deposited.
       ``(d) Standard of Proof.--
       ``(1) Preponderance of evidence.--The standard of proof in 
     an action brought under subsection (b) is a preponderance of 
     the evidence.
       ``(2) Shift of burden of proof.--Upon--
       ``(A) a prima facie showing of the elements set forth in 
     subsection (a), or

[[Page S13744]]

       ``(B) affirmative final determinations adverse to the 
     defendant that are made by the administering authority and 
     the United States International Trade Commission under 
     section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d) 
     relating to imports of the article in question for the 
     country in which the manufacturer of the article is located,

     the burden of proof in an action brought under subsection (b) 
     shall be upon the defendant.
       ``(e) Other Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whenever, in an action brought under 
     subsection (b), it appears to the court that justice requires 
     that other parties be brought before the court, the court may 
     cause them to be summoned, without regard to where they 
     reside, and the subpoenas to that end may be served and 
     enforced in any judicial district of the United States.
       ``(2) Service on district director of customs service.--A 
     foreign manufacturer, producer, or exporter that sells 
     articles, or for whom articles are sold by another party in 
     the United States, shall be treated as having appointed the 
     District Director of the United States Customs Service for 
     the port through which the article that is the subject of the 
     action is commonly imported as the true and lawful agent of 
     the manufacturer, producer, or exporter, and all lawful 
     process may be served on the District Director in any action 
     brought under subsection (b) against the manufacturer, 
     producer, or exporter.
       ``(f) Limitation.--
       ``(1) Statute of limitation.--An action under subsection 
     (b) shall be commenced not later than 4 years after the date 
     on which the cause of action accrues.
       ``(2) Suspension.--The 4-year period provided for in 
     paragraph (1) shall be suspended--
       ``(A) while there is pending an administrative proceeding 
     under subtitle B of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1673 et seq.) relating to the article that is the 
     subject of the action or an appeal of a final determination 
     in such a proceeding; and
       ``(B) for 1 year thereafter.
       ``(g) Noncompliance With Court Order.--If a defendant in an 
     action brought under subsection (b) fails to comply with any 
     discovery order or other order or decree of the court, the 
     court may--
       ``(1) enjoin the further importation into, or the sale or 
     distribution within, the United States by the defendant of 
     articles that are the same as, or similar to, the articles 
     that are alleged in the action to have been sold or imported 
     under the conditions described in subsection (a) until such 
     time as the defendant complies with the order or decree; or
       ``(2) take any other action authorized by law or by the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including entering judgment 
     for the plaintiff.
       ``(h) Confidentiality and Privileged Status.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     confidential or privileged status accorded by law to any 
     documents, evidence, comments, or information shall be 
     maintained in any action brought under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Exception.--In an action brought under subsection (b) 
     the court may--
       ``(A) examine, in camera, any confidential or privileged 
     material;
       ``(B) accept depositions, documents, affidavits, or other 
     evidence under seal; and
       ``(C) disclose such material under such terms and 
     conditions as the court may order.
       ``(i) Expedition of Action.--An action brought under 
     subsection (b) shall be advanced on the docket and expedited 
     in every way possible.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `United 
     States price', `foreign market value', `constructed value', 
     `subsidy', `interested party', and `material injury', have 
     the meanings given those terms under title VII of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.).
       ``(k) Intervention by the United States.--The court shall 
     permit the United States to intervene in any action brought 
     under subsection (b) as a matter of right. The United States 
     shall have all the rights of a party to such action.
       ``(l) Nullification of Order.--An order by a court under 
     this section may be set aside by the President pursuant to 
     section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1702).''.
       (b) Action for Subsidies Violations.--Title VIII of the Act 
     of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 798; 15 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 807. IMPORTATION OR SALE OF SUBSIDIZED ARTICLES.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--No person shall import into, or sell 
     within, the United States an article manufactured or produced 
     in a foreign country if--
       ``(1) the foreign country, any person who is a citizen or 
     national of the foreign country, or a corporation, 
     association, or other organization organized in the foreign 
     country, is providing (directly or indirectly) a subsidy with 
     respect to the manufacture, production, or exportation of the 
     article; and
       ``(2) the importation or sale--
       ``(A) causes or threatens to cause material injury to 
     industry or labor in the United States; or
       ``(B) prevents, in whole or in part, the establishment or 
     modernization of any industry in the United States.
       ``(b) Civil Action.--An interested party whose business or 
     property is injured by reason of the importation or sale of 
     an article in violation of this section may bring a civil 
     action in the United States District Court for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit against any person who--
       ``(1) manufactures, produces, or exports the article; or
       ``(2) imports the article into the United States if the 
     person is related to the manufacturer, producer, or exporter 
     of the article.
       ``(c) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon an affirmative determination by the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit in an action brought under subsection (b), the court 
     shall issue an order that includes a description of the 
     subject article in such detail as the court deems necessary 
     and shall--
       ``(A) direct the Customs Service to assess a countervailing 
     duty on the article covered by the determination in 
     accordance with section 706(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1671e); and
       ``(B) require the deposit of estimated countervailing 
     duties pending liquidation of entries of the article at the 
     same time as estimated normal customs duties on that article 
     are deposited.
       ``(d) Standard of Proof.--
       ``(1) Preponderance of evidence.--The standard of proof in 
     an action filed under subsection (b) is a preponderance of 
     the evidence.
       ``(2) Shift of burden of proof.--Upon--
       ``(A) a prima facie showing of the elements set forth in 
     subsection (a), or
       ``(B) affirmative final determinations adverse to the 
     defendant that are made by the administering authority and 
     the United States International Trade Commission under 
     section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d) 
     relating to imports of the article in question from the 
     country in which the manufacturer of the article is located,

     the burden of proof in an action brought under subsection (b) 
     shall be upon the defendant.
       ``(e) Other Parties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whenever, in an action brought under 
     subsection (b), it appears to the court that justice requires 
     that other parties be brought before the court, the court may 
     cause them to be summoned, without regard to where they 
     reside, and the subpoenas to that end may be served and 
     enforced in any judicial district of the United States.
       ``(2) Service on district director of customs service.--A 
     foreign manufacturer, producer, or exporter that sells 
     articles, or for which articles are sold by another party in 
     the United States, shall be treated as having appointed the 
     District Director of the United States Customs Service for 
     the port through which the article that is the subject of the 
     action is commonly imported as the true and lawful agent of 
     the manufacturer, producer, or exporter, and all lawful 
     process may be served on the District Director in any action 
     brought under subsection (b) against the manufacturer, 
     producer, or exporter.
       ``(f) Limitation.--
       ``(1) Statute of limitations.--An action under subsection 
     (b) shall be commenced not later than 4 years after the date 
     on which the cause of action accrues.
       ``(2) Suspension.--The 4-year period provided for in 
     paragraph (1) shall be suspended--
       ``(A) while there is pending an administrative proceeding 
     under subtitle A of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) relating to the article that is the 
     subject of the action or an appeal of a final determination 
     in such a proceeding; and
       ``(B) for 1 year thereafter.
       ``(g) Noncompliance With Court Order.--If a defendant in an 
     action brought under subsection (b) fails to comply with any 
     discovery order or other order or decree of the court, the 
     court may--
       ``(1) enjoin the further importation into, or the sale or 
     distribution within, the United States by the defendant of 
     articles that are the same as, or similar to, the articles 
     that are alleged in the action to have been sold or imported 
     under the conditions described in subsection (a) until such 
     time as the defendant complies with the order or decree; or
       ``(2) take any other action authorized by law or by the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including entering judgment 
     for the plaintiff.
       ``(h) Confidentiality and Privileged Status.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     confidential or privileged status accorded by law to any 
     documents, evidence, comments, or information shall be 
     maintained in any action brought under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Exception.--In an action brought under subsection (b) 
     the court may--
       ``(A) examine, in camera, any confidential or privileged 
     material;
       ``(B) accept depositions, documents, affidavits, or other 
     evidence under seal; and
       ``(C) disclose such material under such terms and 
     conditions as the court may order.
       ``(i) Expedition of Action.--An action brought under 
     subsection (b) shall be advanced on the docket and expedited 
     in every way possible.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `subsidy', 
     `material injury', and `interested party' have the meanings 
     given those terms under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.).   
       ``(k) Intervention by the United States.--The court shall 
     permit the United States to intervene in any action brought 
     under subsection (b) as a matter of right.

[[Page S13745]]

     The United States shall have all the rights of a party to 
     such action.
       ``(l) Nullification of Order.--An order by a court under 
     this section may be set aside by the President pursuant to 
     section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1702).''.
       (c) Action for Customs Fraud.--
       (1) Amendment of title 28, united states code.--Chapter 95 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1586. Private enforcement action for customs fraud

       ``(a) Civil Action.--An interested party whose business or 
     property is injured by a fraudulent, grossly negligent, or 
     negligent violation of section 592(a) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592(a)) may bring a civil action in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit, without respect to the amount in controversy.
       ``(b) Relief.--Upon proof by an interested party that the 
     business or property of such interested party has been 
     injured by a fraudulent, grossly negligent, or negligent 
     violation of section 592(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the 
     interested party shall--
       ``(1)(A) be granted such equitable relief as may be 
     appropriate, which may include an injunction against further 
     importation into the United States of the merchandise in 
     question; or
       ``(B) if injunctive relief cannot be timely provided or is 
     otherwise inadequate, recover damages for the injuries 
     sustained; and
       ``(2) recover the costs of suit, including reasonable 
     attorney's fees.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Interested party.--The term `interested party' 
     means--
       ``(A) a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United 
     States of like or competing merchandise; or
       ``(B) a trade or business association a majority of whose 
     members manufacture, produce, or wholesale like merchandise 
     or competing merchandise in the United States.
       ``(2) Like merchandise.--The term `like merchandise' means 
     merchandise that is like, or in the absence of like, most 
     similar in characteristics and users with, merchandise being 
     imported into the United States in violation of section 
     592(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592(a)).
       ``(3) Competing merchandise.--The term `competing 
     merchandise' means merchandise that competes with or is a 
     substitute for merchandise being imported into the United 
     States in violation of section 592(a) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 1592(a)).
       ``(d) Intervention by the United States.--The court shall 
     permit the United States to intervene in an action brought 
     under this section, as a matter of right. The United States 
     shall have all the rights of a party.
       ``(e) Nullification of Order.--An order by a court under 
     this section may be set aside by the President pursuant to 
     section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1702).''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     95 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``1586. Private enforcement action for customs fraud.''.

     SEC. __03. AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930.

       (a) In General.--Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     753 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 754. CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET.

       ``(a) In General.--Duties assessed pursuant to a 
     countervailing duty order, an antidumping duty order, or a 
     finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 shall be 
     distributed on an annual basis under this section to workers 
     for damages sustained for loss of wages resulting from the 
     loss of jobs, and to the affected domestic producers for 
     qualifying expenditures. Such distribution shall be known as 
     the `continued dumping and subsidy offset'.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Affected domestic producer.--The term `affected 
     domestic producer' means any manufacturer, producer, farmer, 
     rancher, or worker representative (including associations of 
     such persons) that--
       ``(A) was a petitioner or interested party in support of 
     the petition with respect to which an antidumping duty order, 
     a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or a 
     countervailing duty order has been entered, and
       ``(B) remains in operation.

      Companies, businesses, or persons that have ceased the 
     production of the product covered by the order or finding or 
     who have been acquired by a company or business that is 
     related to a company that opposed the investigation shall not 
     be an affected domestic producer.
       ``(2) Commissioner.--The term `Commissioner' means the 
     Commissioner of Customs.
       ``(3) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.
       ``(4) Qualifying expenditure.--The term `qualifying 
     expenditure' means an expenditure incurred after the issuance 
     of the antidumping duty finding or order or countervailing 
     duty order in any of the following categories:
       ``(A) Plant.
       ``(B) Equipment.
       ``(C) Research and development.
       ``(D) Personnel training.
       ``(E) Acquisition of technology.
       ``(F) Health care benefits to employees paid for by the 
     employer.
       ``(G) Pension benefits to employees paid for by the 
     employer.
       ``(H) Environmental equipment, training, or technology.
       ``(I) Acquisition of raw materials and other inputs.
       ``(J) Borrowed working capital or other funds needed to 
     maintain production.
       ``(5) Related to.--A company, business, or person shall be 
     considered to be `related to' another company, business, or 
     person if--
       ``(A) the company, business, or person directly or 
     indirectly controls or is controlled by the other company, 
     business, or person,
       ``(B) a third party directly or indirectly controls both 
     companies, businesses, or persons,
       ``(C) both companies, businesses, or persons directly or 
     indirectly control a third party and there is reason to 
     believe that the relationship causes the first company, 
     business, or persons to act differently than a nonrelated 
     party.

     For purposes of this paragraph, a party shall be considered 
     to directly or indirectly control another party if the party 
     is legally or operationally in a position to exercise 
     restraint or direction over the other party.
       ``(6) Workers.--The term `workers' refers to persons who 
     sustained damages for loss of wages resulting from loss of 
     jobs. The Secretary of Labor shall determine eligibility for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(c) Distribution Procedures.--The Commissioner in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe 
     procedures for distribution of the continued dumping or 
     subsidies offset required by this section. Such distribution 
     shall be made not later than 60 days after the first day of a 
     fiscal year from duties assessed during the preceding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(d) Parties Eligible for Distribution of Antidumping and 
     Countervailing Duties Assessed.--
       ``(1) List of workers and affected domestic producers.--The 
     Commission shall forward to the Commissioner within 60 days 
     after the effective date of this section in the case of 
     orders or findings in effect on such effective date, or in 
     any other case, within 60 days after the date an antidumping 
     or countervailing duty order or finding is issued, a list of 
     petitioners and persons with respect to each order and 
     finding and a list of persons that indicate support of the 
     petition by letter or through questionnaire response. In 
     those cases in which a determination of injury was not 
     required or the Commission's records do not permit an 
     identification of those in support of a petition, the 
     Commission shall consult with the administering authority to 
     determine the identity of the petitioner and those domestic 
     parties who have entered appearances during administrative 
     reviews conducted by the administering authority under 
     section 751.
       ``(2) Publication of list; certification.--The Commissioner 
     shall publish in the Federal Register at least 30 days before 
     the distribution of a continued dumping and subsidy offset, a 
     notice of intention to distribute the offset and the list of 
     workers and affected domestic producers potentially eligible 
     for the distribution based on the list obtained from the 
     Commission under paragraph (1). The Commissioner shall 
     request a certification from each potentially eligible 
     affected domestic producer--
       ``(A) that the producer desires to receive a distribution;
       ``(B) that the producer is eligible to receive the 
     distribution as an affected domestic producer; and
       ``(C) the qualifying expenditures incurred by the producer 
     since the issuance of the order or finding for which 
     distribution under this section has not previously been made.
       ``(3) Distribution of funds.--The Commissioner in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Labor shall distribute all 
     funds (including all interest earned on the funds) from 
     assessed duties received in the preceding fiscal year to 
     workers and to the affected domestic producers based on the 
     certifications described in paragraph (2). The distributions 
     shall be made on a pro rata basis based on new and remaining 
     qualifying expenditures.
       ``(e) Special Accounts.--
       ``(1) Establishments.--Within 14 days after the effective 
     date of this section, with respect to antidumping duty orders 
     and findings and countervailing duty orders in effect on the 
     effective date of this section, and within 14 days after the 
     date an antidumping duty order or finding or countervailing 
     duty order issued after the effective date takes effect, the 
     Commissioner shall establish in the Treasury of the United 
     States a special account with respect to each such order or 
     finding.
       ``(2) Deposits into accounts.--The Commissioner shall 
     deposit into the special accounts, all antidumping or 
     countervailing duties (including interest earned on such 
     duties) that are assessed after the effective date of this 
     section under the antidumping order or finding or the 
     countervailing duty order with respect to which the account 
     was established.
       ``(3) Time and manner of distributions.--Consistent with 
     the requirements of subsections (c) and (d), the Commissioner 
     shall by regulation prescribe the time and manner

[[Page S13746]]

     in which distribution of the funds in a special account shall 
     made.
       ``(4) Termination.--A special account shall terminate 
     after--
       ``(A) the order or finding with respect to which the 
     account was established has terminated;
       ``(B) all entries relating to the order or finding are 
     liquidated and duties assessed collected;
       ``(C) the Commissioner has provided notice and a final 
     opportunity to obtain distribution pursuant to subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(D) 90 days has elapsed from the date of the notice 
     described in subparagraph (C).

     Amounts not claimed within 90 days of the date of the notice 
     described in subparagraph (C), shall be deposited into the 
     general fund of the Treasury.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for title 
     VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting the 
     following new item after the item relating to section 753:

``Sec. 754. Continued dumping and subsidy offset.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to all antidumping and 
     countervailing duty assessments made on or after October 1, 
     1996.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as noted, there are two modifications to 
the amendment. They are minor modifications. One relates to the court 
which will have jurisdiction. Instead of the Court of International 
Trade, it will be the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 
And the second is the striking of language citing antitrust laws, which 
has been deleted to avoid any possible question as to whether this is a 
Finance Committee jurisdictional matter and appropriate amendment for 
this bill.
  The essence of this bill is to provide a private right of action to 
damaged, injured parties when goods are imported into the United States 
which are dumped in violation of U.S. trade laws and in violation of 
international trade laws. Many American industries have been decimated 
as a result of this illegal practice, and the existing remedies are 
totally insufficient to provide adequate safeguards for the violation 
of these trade laws.
  This bill does not deal with any issue of inappropriate consideration 
for domestic industries and is really not protectionist, as that term 
has been traditionally defined. The international trade laws are 
specific that the goods ought not to be sold in the United States at a 
lower price than they are sold in the country from which the exports 
are made and imported into the United States. Our trade laws in the 
United States preclude dumped goods from coming into this country. 
International trade laws preclude dumped goods.
  This is an approach I have been advocating for more than 17 years 
now, with my initial bill having been introduced in the 97th Congress, 
S. 2167, on March 4, 1983. I followed up with similar legislation in 
the 98th Congress, S. 418 on February 3, 1983; in the 99th Congress, 
with S. 236; in the 100th Congress, with S. 361; in the 102d Congress, 
with S. 2508. The thrust has always been the same, that is to provide a 
private right of action so injured parties could go into Federal court 
and secure redress on their legal rights because the proceedings 
through section 201, through the Department of Commerce, through the 
International Trade Commission, are so long that they are virtually 
ineffective.
  If an injured party goes into the Federal court under the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is possible to get a temporary restraining 
order on affidavits within 5 days, then a prompt preliminary hearing 
and a preliminary injunction and prompt equitable proceedings for a 
permanent injunction.
  The initial legislation, which was introduced back in 1982, called 
for injunctive relief. The pending amendment provides for a remedy of 
duties or tariffs equal to the amount of the dumping, the difference 
between what the product would be sold at in the United States compared 
to what the product is being sold at in the home country.
  I have a list of antidumping duty orders in effect on March 1, 1999. 
I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Congressional 
Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the 5 pages which I am submitting, 
there are some 290 items which are being subjected to the antidumping 
orders as of March 1 of this year.
  Some illustrative provisions: In Argentina, there is a dumping order 
on carbon steel; as to Bangladesh, a dumping order on cotton shop 
towels; Belgium, a dumping order on sugar; Canada, a dumping order on 
red raspberries; Chile, a dumping order on fresh cut flowers; China, a 
dumping order on garlic. So the list goes on and on and on.
  When I testified at the hearing before the Finance Committee in favor 
of this bill, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, made a comment 
that this kind of provision might well be applied to wheat and wheat 
farmers, where they are subjected to dumping from other countries. I 
suggest to my colleagues who are listening to this on C-SPAN, or to the 
staffs, that there is hardly a State--there may be no State--which is 
unaffected by dumping where goods come in from a foreign country and 
are sold in the United States at a price lower than they are being sold 
in the foreign country in violation of U.S. trade laws and in violation 
of international trade laws.

  The remedy has been modified to provide for the duties or tariffs, as 
I have stated, in order to comply with GATT, because a question had 
arisen as to whether injunctive relief was appropriate under GATT. I 
frankly believe it is. But to avoid any problem, the relief has been 
modified to duties or tariffs.
  The difficulty with the proceedings with the existing laws is the 
tremendous length of time which is taken. For an illustration, there 
was an antidumping order issued as to salmon. It was initiated on July 
10, 1997. The order was finally issued on July 30, 1998--time elapsed, 
380 days.
  A second illustrative case involved garlic from China, initiated on 
February 28, 1994; the order issued on November 16, 1994--200 days.
  A third illustration, magnesium from Ukraine: Initiated April 26, 
1994; the order issued May 12, 1995--360 days.
  Hot rolled steel from Japan: The initiation of the action was October 
27, 1998; the order issued on June 19, 1999. These are only 
illustrative of the enormous lapse in time.
  Contrasted with what can happen in a court of equity, a temporary 
restraining order can be issued within 5 days on affidavits, prompt 
proceedings for preliminary injunctions, prompt proceedings for 
injunctive relief generally.
  The difficulty with existing law is that the decisions are made based 
upon political considerations and foreign relations, and not based upon 
what is right for American industries who are being undersold by these 
dumped goods and have suffered a tremendous loss of employment.
  My State, Pennsylvania, has been victimized by dumping for the past 2 
decades. Two decades ago, the American steel industry employed some 
500,000 individuals. Today that number has dwindled to 160,000, 
notwithstanding the fact that the American steel industry has spent 
some $50 billion in modernizing.
  Under existing laws, the executive branch has the authority to issue 
suspension agreements. One illustration of that was a suspension 
agreement issued on July 13 of this year when Secretary Daley announced 
the United States and Russia had reached agreements to reduce imports 
of steel. That was immediately followed by strenuous objections by a 
number of steel companies operating out of my State, Pennsylvania--
Bethlehem Steel, LTV, National Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group--
where they made strenuous objection to these suspension agreements 
which undermine the effectiveness and credibility of U.S. trade laws 
and a rule-based international trade system.
  I recall, in 1984, a time when the American steel industry was 
especially hard hit by imports, dumped imports.
  The International Trade Commission had issued an order 3-2 in favor 
of the position of American Steel. The President had the authority to 
overrule that decision. Senator Heinz and I then made the rounds and 
talked to International Trade Representative Brock who agreed that the 
International Trade Commission order in favor of American Steel should 
be upheld. We talked to Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige who 
similarly agreed. We then talked to Secretary of State George Shultz 
who disagreed, as did Secretary of Defense Weinberger, with Secretary 
of State Shultz putting it on

[[Page S13747]]

grounds of U.S. foreign policy and Secretary of Defense Weinberger 
putting it on grounds of U.S. defense policy.
  When these matters are left to the executive branch, the executive 
branch inevitably does a balancing of what is happening in Russia, what 
is happening in Argentina, what is happening in Japan, what is 
happening in Korea.
  It is certainly true that when the suspension agreements were entered 
into by Secretary Daley on July 13, 1999, the Russian economy was in a 
precarious state, but then so were certain aspects of the economy of 
western Pennsylvania.
  The thrust of taking the matter to the courts is that justice will be 
done in accordance with existing law, contrasted with what the 
desirability may be for U.S. foreign policy or for U.S. defense policy.
  There is stated from time to time a reluctance to take matters to the 
court, but my own view, having had substantial practice in the Federal 
courts as well as the State courts, is that is where justice is done. 
If there is a case that could be made to show there is a violation of 
U.S. trade laws and foreign trade laws on dumping, those legal 
principles will be administered by the courts. Where the wheat industry 
is being victimized by dumping or the steel industry is being 
victimized by dumping or the sugar industry is being victimized by 
dumping or the fresh cut flower industry is being victimized by 
dumping, justice will be done in the Federal courts.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                               ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN EFFECT ON MARCH 1, 1999
                   [Duty orders revoked by Sunset Review remain in effect until Jan. 1, 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    CASE NUM AND COUNTRY                                     PRODUCT                   DAT INI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-357-007  ARGENTINA.......................................  CARBON STEEL WIRE ROD.................          12/
A-357-405  ARGENTINA.......................................  BARBED WIRE AND BARBLESS WIRE STRAND..          12/
A-357-802  ARGENTINA.......................................  L-WR WELDED CARBON STEEL PIPE & TUBE..          06/
A-357-804  ARGENTINA.......................................  SILICON METAL.........................          09/
A-357-809  ARGENTINA.......................................  LINE AND PRESSURE PIPE................          07/
A-357-810  ARGENTINA.......................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          07/
A-831-801  ARMENIA.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-602-803  AUSTRALIA.......................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-832-801  AZERBAIJAN......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-538-802  BANGLADESH......................................  COTTON SHOP TOWELS....................          04/
A-822-801  BELARUS.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-423-077  BELGIUM.........................................  SUGAR.................................          08/
A-423-602  BELGIUM.........................................  INDUSTRIAL PHOSPHORIC ACID............          12/
A-423-805  BELGIUM.........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-351-503  BRAZIL..........................................  IRON CONSTRUCTION CASTINGS............          06/
A-351-505  BRAZIL..........................................  MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS.....          08/
A-351-602  BRAZIL..........................................  CARBON STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE FITTINGS..          03/
A-351-603  BRAZIL..........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-351-605  BRAZIL..........................................  FROZEN CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE......          06/
A-351-804  BRAZIL..........................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-351-806  BRAZIL..........................................  SILICON METAL.........................          09/
A-351-809  BRAZIL..........................................  CIRCULAR WELDED NON-ALLOY STEEL PIPE..          10/
A-351-811  BRAZIL..........................................  HOT ROLLED LEAD/BISMUTH CARBON STEEL            05/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-351-817  BRAZIL..........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-351-819  BRAZIL..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          01/
A-351-820  BRAZIL..........................................  FERROSILICON..........................          02/
A-351-824  BRAZIL..........................................  SILICOMANGANESE.......................          12/
A-351-825  BRAZIL..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL BAR...................          01/
A-351-826  BRAZIL..........................................  LINE AND PRESSURE PIPE................          07/
A-122-047  CANADA..........................................  ELEMENTAL SULPHUR.....................          02/
A-122-085  CANADA..........................................  SUGAR & SYRUP.........................          04/
A-122-401  CANADA..........................................  RED RASPBERRIES.......................          07/
A-122-503  CANADA..........................................  IRON CONSTRUCTION CASTINGS............          06/
A-122-506  CANADA..........................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          08/
A-122-601  CANADA..........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-122-605  CANADA..........................................  COLOR PICTURE TUBES...................          12/
A-122-804  CANADA..........................................  NEW STEEL RAILS.......................          10/
A-122-814  CANADA..........................................  PURE AND ALLOY MAGNESIUM..............          10/
A-122-822  CANADA..........................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-122-823  CANADA..........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-337-602  CHILE...........................................  FRESH CUT FLOWERS.....................          06/
A-337-803  CHILE...........................................  FRESH ATLANTIC SALMON.................          07/
A-337-804  CHILE...........................................  PRESERVED MUSHROOMS...................          02/
A-570-001  CHINA PRC.......................................  POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE................          03/
A-570-002  CHINA PRC.......................................  CHLOROPICRIN..........................          05/
A-570-003  CHINA PRC.......................................  COTTON SHOP TOWELS....................          09/
A-570-007  CHINA PRC.......................................  BARIUM CHLORIDE.......................          11/
A-570-101  CHINA PRC.......................................  GREIG POLYESTER COTTON PRINT CLOTH....          09/
A-570-501  CHINA PRC.......................................  NATURAL BRISTLE PAINT BRUSHES & BRUSH           03/
                                                              HEADS.
A-570-502  CHINA PRC.......................................  IRON CONSTRUCTION CASTINGS............          06/
A-570-504  CHINA PRC.......................................  PETROLEUM WAX CANDLES.................          09/
A-570-506  CHINA PRC.......................................  PORCELAIN-ON-STEEL COOKING WARE.......          12/
A-570-601  CHINA PRC.......................................  TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS...............          09/
A-570-802  CHINA PRC.......................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-570-803  CHINA PRC.......................................  HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS, W/WO HANDLES.          05/
A-570-804  CHINA PRC.......................................  SPARKLERS.............................          07/
A-570-805  CHINA PRC.......................................  SULFUR CHEMICALS (SODIUM THIOSULFATE).          08/
A-570-806  CHINA PRC.......................................  SILICON METAL.........................          09/
A-570-808  CHINA PRC.......................................  CHROME-PLATE LUG NUTS.................          11/
A-570-811  CHINA PRC.......................................  TUNGSTEN ORE CONCENTRATES.............          02/
A-570-814  CHINA PRC.......................................  CARBON STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE FITTINGS..          06/
A-570-815  CHINA PRC.......................................  SULFANILIC ACID.......................          10/
A-570-819  CHINA PRC.......................................  FERROSILICON..........................          06/
A-570-820  CHINA PRC.......................................  COMPACT DUCTILE IRON WATERWORKS                 08/
                                                              FITTINGS.
A-570-822  CHINA PRC.......................................  HELICAL SPRING LOCK WASHERS...........          10/
A-570-825  CHINA PRC.......................................  SEBACIC ACID..........................          08/
A-570-826  CHINA PRC.......................................  PAPER CLIPS...........................          11/
A-570-827  CHINA PRC.......................................  PENCILS, CASED........................          12/
A-570-828  CHINA PRC.......................................  SILICOMANGANESE.......................          12/
A-570-830  CHINA PRC.......................................  COUMARIN..............................          01/
A-570-831  CHINA PRC.......................................  GARLIC, FRESH.........................          02/
A-570-832  CHINA PRC.......................................  PURE MAGNESIUM........................          04/
A-570-835  CHINA PRC.......................................  FURFURYL ALCOHOL......................          06/
A-570-836  CHINA PRC.......................................  GLYCINE...............................          07/
A-570-840  CHINA PRC.......................................  MANGANESE METAL.......................          12/
A-570-842  CHINA PRC.......................................  POLYVINYL ALCOHOL.....................          04/
A-570-844  CHINA PRC.......................................  MELAMINE INSTITUTIONAL DINNERWARE.....          03/
A-570-846  CHINA PRC.......................................  BRAKE ROTORS..........................          04/
A-570-847  CHINA PRC.......................................  PERSULFATES...........................          08/
A-570-848  CHINA PRC.......................................  FRESHWATER CRAWFISH TAILMEAT..........          10/
A-583-008  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  SMALL DIAM. WELDED CARBON STEEL PIPE &          05/
                                                              TUBE.
A-583-080  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  CARBON STEEL PLATE....................          10/
A-583-505  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          08/
A-583-507  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS.....          08/
A-583-508  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  PORCELAIN-ON-STEEL COOKING WARE.......          12/
A-583-603  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  TOP-OF-THE-STOVE STNLS STEEL COOKING            02/
                                                              WARE.
A-583-605  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  CARBON STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE FITTINGS..          03/
A-583-803  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  LIGHT-WALLED RECT. WELDED CARBON STEEL          07/
                                                              PIPE & TUBE.

[[Page S13748]]

 
A-583-806  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  TELEPHONE SYSTEMS & SUBASSEMBLIES               01/
                                                              THEREOF.
A-583-810  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  CHROME-PLATED LUG NUTS................          11/
A-583-814  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  CIRCULAR WELDED NON-ALLOY STEEL PIPE..          10/
A-583-815  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  WELDED ASTM A-312 STAINLESS STEEL PIPE          12/
A-583-816  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  STAINLESS STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE                  06/
                                                              FITTINGS.
A-583-820  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  HELICAL SPRING LOCK WASHERS...........          10/
A-583-821  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  STAINLESS STEEL FLANGES...............          02/
A-583-824  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  POLYVINYL ALCOHOL.....................          04/
A-583-825  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  MELAMINE INSTITUTIONAL DINNERWARE.....          03/
A-583-826  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  COLLATED ROOFING NAILS................          12/
A-583-827  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY...........          03/
A-583-828  CHINA TAIWAN....................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-301-602  COLOMBIA........................................  FRESH CUT FLOWERS.....................          06/
A-331-602  ECUADOR.........................................  FRESH CUT FLOWERS.....................          06/
A-447-801  ESTONIA.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-405-802  FINLAND.........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLACE......          07/
A-427-001  FRANCE..........................................  SORBITOL..............................          07/
A-427-009  FRANCE..........................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          07/
A-427-078  FRANCE..........................................  SUGAR.................................          08/
A-427-098  FRANCE..........................................  ANHYDROUS SODIUM METASLICATE..........          06/
A-427-602  FRANCE..........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-427-801  FRANCE..........................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-427-804  FRANCE..........................................  HOT ROLLED LEAD/BISMUTH CARBON STEEL            05/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-427-808  FRANCE..........................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-427-811  FRANCE..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          01/
A-427-812  FRANCE..........................................  CALCIUM ALUMINATE CEMENT AND CEMENT             04/
                                                              CLINKER.
A-100-001  GENERAL ISSUES..................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-100-003  GENERAL ISSUES..................................  CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS (FILED 30-           07/
                                                              Jun-92).
A-833-801  GEORGIA.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-428-811  GERMANY UNITED..................................  HOT ROLLED LEAD/BISMUTH CARBON STEEL            05/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-428-814  GERMANY UNITED..................................  COLD-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS          07/
A-428-815  GERMANY UNITED..................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-428-816  GERMANY UNITED..................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-428-820  GERMANY UNITED..................................  SEAMLESS LINE AND PRESSURE PIPE.......          07/
A-428-821  GERMANY UNITED..................................  LARGE NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSES &              07/
                                                              COMPONENTS.
A-428-082  GERMANY WEST....................................  SUGAR.................................          08/
A-428-602  GERMANY WEST....................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-428-801  GERMANY WEST....................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-428-802  GERMANY WEST....................................  INDUSTRIAL BELTS......................          07/
A-428-803  GERMANY WEST....................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-428-807  GERMANY WEST....................................  SULFUR CHEMICALS......................          08/
A-484-801  GREECE..........................................  ELECTROLYTIC MANGANESE DIOXIDE........          06/
A-437-601  HUNGARY.........................................  TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS...............          09/
A-533-502  INDIA...........................................  WELDED CARBON STEEL PIPES & TUBES.....          08/
A-533-806  INDIA...........................................  SULFANILIC ACID.......................          06/
A-533-808  INDIA...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          01/
A-533-809  INDIA...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL FLANGES...............          02/
A-533-810  INDIA...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL BAR...................          01/
A-533-813  INDIA...........................................  PRESERVED MUSHROOMS...................          02/
A-560-801  INDONESIA.......................................  MELAMINE INSTITUTIONAL DINNERWARE.....          03/
A-560-802  INDONESIA.......................................  PRESERVED MUSHROOMS...................          02/
A-507-502  IRAN............................................  IN SHELL PISTACHIOS...................          10/
A-508-602  ISRAEL..........................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          04/
A-508-604  ISRAEL..........................................  INDUSTRIAL PHOSPHORIC ACID............          12/
A-475-059  ITALY...........................................  PRESSURE SENSITIVE PLASTIC TAPE.......          05/
A-475-401  ITALY...........................................  BRASS FIRE PROTECTION PRODUCTS........          02/
A-475-601  ITALY...........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-475-703  ITALY...........................................  GRANULAR POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE RESIN          12/
A-475-801  ITALY...........................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-475-802  ITALY...........................................  INDUSTRIAL BELTS......................          07/
A-475-811  ITALY...........................................  GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL.......          09/
A-475-814  ITALY...........................................  SEAMLESS LINE AND PRESSURE PIPE.......          07/
A-475-816  ITALY...........................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          07/
A-475-818  ITALY...........................................  PASTA, CERTAIN........................          06/
A-475-820  ITALY...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-588-028  JAPAN...........................................  ROLLER CHAIN OTHER THAN BICYCLE.......          02/
A-588-041  JAPAN...........................................  METHIONINE, SYNTHETIC.................          08/
A-588-045  JAPAN...........................................  STEEL WIRE ROPE.......................          08/
A-588-054  JAPAN...........................................  TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS, UNDER 4......          12/
A-588-056  JAPAN...........................................  MELAMINE IN CRYSTAL FORM..............          12/
A-588-068  JAPAN...........................................  P.C. STEEL WIRE STRAND................          11/
A-588-401  JAPAN...........................................  CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE..................          05/
A-588-405  JAPAN...........................................  CELLULAR MOBILE TELEPHONES &                    11/
                                                              SUBASSEMBLIES.
A-588-602  JAPAN...........................................  CARBON STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE FITTINGS..          03/
A-588-604  JAPAN...........................................  TAPERED ROLLE BEARINGS, OVER 4........          09/
A-588-605  JAPAN...........................................  MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS.....          09/
A-588-609  JAPAN...........................................  COLOR PICTURE TUBES...................          12/
A-588-702  JAPAN...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE                  04/
                                                              FITTINGS.
A-588-703  JAPAN...........................................  INTERNAL COMBUSTION IND FORKLIFT                05/
                                                              TRUCKS.
A-588-704  JAPAN...........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          08/
A-588-706  JAPAN...........................................  NITRILE RUBBER........................          09/
A-588-707  JAPAN...........................................  GRANULAR POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE RESIN          12/
A-588-802  JAPAN...........................................  3.5 MICRODISKS AND MEDIA THEREFOR.....          03/
A-588-804  JAPAN...........................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-588-806  JAPAN...........................................  ELECTROLYTIC MANGANESE DIOXIDE........          06/
A-588-807  JAPAN...........................................  INDUSTRIAL BELTS......................          07/
A-588-809  JAPAN...........................................  TELEPHONE SYSTEMS & SUBASSEMBLIES               01/
                                                              THEREOF.
A-588-810  JAPAN...........................................  MECHANICAL TRANSFER PRESSES...........          02/
A-588-811  JAPAN...........................................  DRAFTING MACHINES & PARTS THEREOF.....          05/
A-588-812  JAPAN...........................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-588-813  JAPAN...........................................  MULTIANGLE LASER LIGHT SCATTERING               04/
                                                              INSTR.
A-588-815  JAPAN...........................................  GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT AND CEMENT                 06/
                                                              CLINKER.
A-588-816  JAPAN...........................................  BENZYL P-HYDROXYBENZOATE (BENZYL                07/
                                                              PARABEN).
A-588-823  JAPAN...........................................  PROF ELECTRIC CUTTING/SANDING/GRINDING          06/
                                                              TOOLS.
A-588-826  JAPAN...........................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-588-829  JAPAN...........................................  DEFROST TIMERS........................          02/
A-588-831  JAPAN...........................................  GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL.......          09/
A-588-833  JAPAN...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL BAR...................          01/
A-588-835  JAPAN...........................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          07/
A-588-836  JAPAN...........................................  POLYVINYL ALCOHOL.....................          04/
A-588-837  JAPAN...........................................  LARGE NEWSPAPER PRINTING PRESSES &              07/
                                                              COMPONENTS.
A-588-838  JAPAN...........................................  CLAD STEEL PLATE......................          10/
A-588-840  JAPAN...........................................  GAS TURBO COMPRESSORS.................          06/
A-588-843  JAPAN...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-834-801  KAZAKHSTAN......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-834-804  KAZAKHSTAN......................................  FERROSILICON..........................          06/
A-779-602  KENYA...........................................  FRESH CUT FLOWERS.....................          06/
A-580-507  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS.....          08/
A-580-601  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  TOP-OF-THE-STOVE STNLS STEEL COOKING            02/
                                                              WARE.
A-580-603  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/

[[Page S13749]]

 
A-580-605  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  COLOR PICTURE TUBES...................          12/
A-580-803  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  TELEPHONE SYSTEMS & SUBASSEMBLIES               01/
                                                              THEREOF.
A-580-805  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-580-807  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET) FILM.          05/
A-580-809  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  CIRCULAR WELDED NON-ALLOY STEEL PIPE..          10/
A-580-810  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  WELDED ASTM A-312 STAINLESS STEEL PIPE          12/
A-580-811  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  CARBON STEEL WIRE ROPE................          05/
A-580-812  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  DRAMS OF 1 MEGABIT & ABOVE............          05/
A-580-813  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  STAINLESS STEEL BUTT-WELD PIPE                  06/
                                                              FITTINGS.
A-580-815  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  COLD-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS          07/
A-580-816  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT           07/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-580-825  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          07/
A-580-829  KOREA SOUTH.....................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-835-801  KYRGYZSTAN......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-449-801  LATVIA..........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-451-801  LITHUANIA.......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-557-805  MALAYSIA........................................  EXTRUDED RUBBER THREAD................          09/
A-201-504  MEXICO..........................................  PORCELAIN-ON-STEEL COOKING WARE.......          12/
A-201-601  MEXICO..........................................  FRESH CUT FLOWERS.....................          06/
A-201-802  MEXICO..........................................  GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT AND CEMENT                 10/
                                                              CLINKER.
A-201-805  MEXICO..........................................  CIRCULAR WELDED NON-ALLOY STEEL PIPE..          10/
A-201-806  MEXICO..........................................  CARBON STEEL WIRE ROPE................          05/
A-201-809  MEXICO..........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-201-817  MEXICO..........................................  OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS.............          07/
A-841-801  MOLDOVA.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-421-701  NETHERLANDS.....................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          08/
A-421-804  NETHERLANDS.....................................  COLD-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS          07/
A-421-805  NETHERLANDS.....................................  ARAMID FIBER OF PPD-T.................          07/
A-614-502  NEW ZEALAND.....................................  LOW FUMING BRAZING COPPER WIRE & ROD..          03/
A-614-801  NEW ZEALAND.....................................  FRESH KIWIFRUIT.......................          05/
A-403-801  NORWAY..........................................  FRESH & CHILLED ATLANTIC SALMON.......          03/
A-455-802  POLAND..........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-485-601  ROMANIA.........................................  UREA..................................          08/
A-485-602  ROMANIA.........................................  TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS...............          09/
A-485-801  ROMANIA.........................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-485-803  ROMANIA.........................................  CUT0TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-821-801  RUSSIA..........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-821-804  RUSSIA..........................................  FERROSILICON..........................          06/
A-821-805  RUSSIA..........................................  PURE MAGNESIUM........................          04/
A-821-807  RUSSIA..........................................  FERROVANADIUM AND NITRIDED VANADIUM...          06/
A-559-502  SINGAPORE.......................................  SMALL DIAMETER STANDARD & RECTANGULAR           12/
                                                              PIPE & TUBE.
A-559-601  SINGAPORE.......................................  COLOR PICTURE TUBES...................          12/
A-559-801  SINGAPORE.......................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-559-802  SINGAPORE.......................................  INDUSTRIAL BELTS......................          07/
A-791-502  SOUTH AFRICA....................................  LOW FUMING BRAZING COPPER WIRE & ROD..          03/
A-791-802  SOUTH AFRICA....................................  FURFURYL ALCOHOL......................          06/
A-469-007  SPAIN...........................................  POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE................          03/
A-469-803  SPAIN...........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-469-805  SPAIN...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL BAR...................          01/
A-469-807  SPAIN...........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-401-040  SWEDEN..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL PLATE.................          05/
A-401-601  SWEDEN..........................................  BRASS SHEET & STRIP...................          04/
A-401-603  SWEDEN..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL HOLLOW PRODUCTS.......          11/
A-401-801  SWEDEN..........................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-401-805  SWEDEN..........................................  CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-401-806  SWEDEN..........................................  STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD..............          08/
A-842-801  TAJIKISTAN......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-549-502  THAILAND........................................  WELDED CARBON STEEL PIPES & TUBES.....          03/
A-549-601  THAILAND........................................  MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS.....          09/
A-549-807  THAILAND........................................  CARBON STEEL BUTT--WELD PIPE FITTINGS.          06/
A-549-812  THAILAND........................................  FURFURYL ALCOHOL......................          06/
A-549-813  THAILAND........................................  CANNED PINEAPPLE FRUIT................          07/
A-489-501  TURKEY..........................................  WELDED CARBON STEEL PIPE & TUBE.......          08/
A-489-602  TURKEY..........................................  ASPIRIN...............................          11/
A-489-805  TURKEY..........................................  PASTA, CERTAIN........................          06/
A-489-807  TURKEY..........................................  REBAR STEEL...........................          04/
A-843-801  TURKMENISTAN....................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-823-801  UKRAINE.........................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-823-802  UKRAINE.........................................  URANIUM...............................          12/
A-823-804  UKRAINE.........................................  FERROSILICON..........................          06/
A-823-806  UKRAINE.........................................  PURE MAGNESIUM........................          04/
A-412-801  UNITED KINGDOM..................................  ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.................          04/
A-412-803  UNITED KINGDOM..................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
A-412-805  UNITED KINGDOM..................................  SULFUR CHEMICALS......................          08/
A-412-810  UNITED KINGDOM..................................  HOT ROLLED LEAD/BISMUTH CARBON STEEL            05/
                                                              PRODUCTS.
A-412-814  UNITED KINGDOM..................................  CUT-T0-LENGTH CARBON STEEL PLATE......          07/
A-461-008  USSR............................................  TITANIUM SPONGE.......................          11/
A-461-601  USSR............................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-844-801  UZBEKISTAN......................................  SOLID UREA............................          08/
A-307-805  VENEZUELA.......................................  CIRCULAR WELDED NON-ALLOY STEEL PIPE..          10/
A-307-807  VENEZUELA.......................................  FERROSILICON..........................          06/
A-479-801  YUGOSLAVIA......................................  INDUSTRIAL NITROCELLULOSE.............          10/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment. I do so do for three reasons. First, there is no evidence 
that the current antidumping and countervailing duty laws have failed 
to deliver relief to injured industries. My colleague argues that the 
amendment is required to address the unfair trade practices facing the 
steel industry. I would have preferred not to have to revisit the many 
points that were made in the context of the debate over the steel quota 
legislation this past summer. This bill is about trade and investment 
with Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. I prefer we keep our 
focus there. That said, since my colleague's amendment has raised those 
issues before us yet again, I think it is important to remind my 
colleagues about the points that were made at length in this past 
summer's debate.
  You may recall that, at the time, the steel industry and the 
steelworkers made the point that they faced a sudden surge of increased 
imports of steel and were sufficiently threatened that they sought to 
impose direct quotas on imports of various steel products. They argued 
that the existing import relief laws were inadequate to the task of 
addressing that surge. What the debate revealed was quite a different 
story. In fact, while imports into the United States did surge 
dramatically in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, they then 
dropped precipitously in response to the filing of a series of 
antidumping measures. Imports have continued that downward trend as a 
result of those unfair trade actions and the suspension agreements 
negotiated by the Commerce Department that effectively blocked any 
further imports of hot and cold rolled products from Russia and other 
countries engaged in below cost sales into the United States market. 
What lessons should we draw from that

[[Page S13750]]

experience? One is that the existing laws work exactly as they are 
intended. They provide an effective and efficient means of obtaining 
relief from unfairly dumped or subsidized imports. Indeed, as the Wall 
Street Journal pointed out in an article published in the midst of the 
steel industry's filing of dumping actions this past year, the mere 
filing of an unfair trade action under existing laws has a dramatic 
impact on prices. The article quoted Curtiss Barnette, the chief 
executive of Bethlehem Steel as acknowledging that trade cases had 
become a ``part of the Bethlehem's ``normal business-planning 
process,'' and acknowledging that, even where dumping actions failed, 
``You have won some interim relief and you have said you're going to 
protect your rights.''
  Nicholas Tolerico, executive vice president of Thyssen, a Detroit-
based steel processing and importing unit of a German steelmaker, made 
the point even more emphatically. He indicated that, among importers 
faced with the prospect of an antidumping action, ``the response is 
just to stop importing.'' The same holds true for foreign exporters 
faced with unfair trade complaints even when they eventually win 
cases. The article quoted the chairman of Ispat International, one of 
the largest steel manufacturers in the world to the effect that his 
company had cut exports to the United States from a wire-rod mill in 
Trinidad and Tobago by 40 percent simply due to the risk inherent in 
trade litigation even though Trinidad's steelmakers eventually won the 
case. Why is that the case? Some statistics might help here.

  The reason that both exporters and importers of steel halt trade the 
minute a trade case is filed is because of the record compiled by U.S. 
industry. The Department of Commerce grants relief to the petitioning 
industry in over 90 percent of the cases filed under the antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws. Due to the deference that the Court of 
International Trade is obliged to pay to the Commerce Department's 
decisions under current law, the Department's decisions are upheld over 
90 percent of the time. In other words, if you are an exporter of steel 
facing an unfair trade action in the United States, there is a 9 in 10 
chance that you will face some considerable penalty. Given that steel 
is a commodity product, and microeconomic theory would dictate that all 
such products would be priced to the margin, you, as the foreign 
exporter, are likely to find yourself priced out of the competitive 
U.S. market with even a slight dumping our countervailing duty added 
onto the price of your current shipments.
  Now, let's look at it from an importer's perspective. Let's say you 
are in the automobile industry in the United States, or one of the 
other steel consuming industries that employ more than 40 persons in 
the United States for every person employed in the steel industry here. 
In fact, let's say you are the plant manager for the Dodge Durango 
plant in Delaware and you are operating as efficiently as you possibly 
can to compete with your competition in the hotly contested market for 
sport utility vehicles. You operate on the basis of ``just in time'' 
delivery to ensure that you carry as little inventory as possible. You 
do that, in part, to reduce the associated costs and, in part, to take 
advantage of any change in prices for component parts that may help you 
compete in your market. That, however, can make you more vulnerable to 
price swings in the market for component parts. Then, suddenly, the 
steel industry files a series of dumping actions. Do you continue to 
import steel when you could be faced with a dramatic increase in price 
if the case succeeds? No. You stop importing from the targeted country 
or companies in order to reduce your risk.
  The net result is that the cases filed before the Commerce Department 
begin to raise prices as soon as they are filed simply because the 
market is responding to the fact that the Commerce Department, 9 cases 
out of 10, is going to impose a significant penalty at the end of the 
day. Now, would the result be the same if these cases were litigated 
before the Federal courts, as my colleague's amendment would require? I 
strongly doubt that. The cases are complex, the facts frequently are in 
dispute, and the outcome less assured because of the nature of the 
litigation process.
  Those who have spent time litigating in the Federal courts tell me 
that they do not quote odds on cases to their clients even on sure 
winners due solely to the risks of litigation. Those with experience 
litigating before Federal courts tell me that the likely result of a 
shift of jurisdiction from the administrative agencies to the courts 
would be a more intrusive review--without the deference the courts 
currently pay to Commerce Department decisions. The net result would be 
greater uncertainty as to the result in these cases, which, for the 
steel industry, would ultimately spell a less reliable outcome than 
they currently achieve before the administrative agencies.

  In short, the dumping and countervailing duty laws appear to be 
working as designed and the change suggested by my colleague would 
simply increase the uncertainty of the outcome from the steel 
industry's perspective. Second, there is no evidence that shifting the 
burden of investigating foreign unfair trade practices to the courts 
would in any way enhance the prospect for prompt relief. At hearings 
earlier this year before the Finance Committee, those who have 
litigated under the ``rocket docket'' at the Commerce Department and 
the International Trade Commission have complained about the fact that 
they do not get relief as promptly as they like. But, no one suggested 
that a shift of jurisdiction to the courts would some how improve the 
situation. Given the record of the courts in handling complex economic 
litigation in other areas, it is not clear to me that shifting the 
burden of the initial investigation to the courts, with any allowance 
at all for the normal process of discovery between private litigants, 
would provide a benefit to the petitioning industry in these cases.
  While both petitioners and respondents complain about their treatment 
before the administrative agencies, largely due to what they consider 
to be the arbitrary basis for their decisions, both sides to the 
litigation seem to agree that the cases themselves are completed as 
rapidly as possible. That not only helps provide relief to the 
petitioning industry on as timely a basis as practical, it also has the 
significant benefit of deciding the issue for the rest of the players 
in the marketplace. What that really does is reduce the uncertainty in 
the market that the filing of the case creates. So the plant manager at 
the Dodge Durango facility in Delaware can rely on decisions in making 
his own assessment of who to purchase steel from for the coming 
production run.
  Finally, let me say that my colleague's proposal may simply be ahead 
of its time. What it suggests is something akin to an antitrust 
remedy--in other words, litigation between private parties that reduces 
the Government's role in the process. I personally think that there 
would be real merit to examining that sort of proposal in the Finance 
Committee in the future. And I would welcome the opportunity to do so 
rather than forcing a vote on the proposal today. The reason I say that 
the proposal may be ahead of its time is that an antitrust remedy is 
relevant when the actions involved are solely those of private parties. 
That is not the case with most foreign unfair trade practices today. 
Even dumping is not solely a function of private pricing decisions by 
foreign producers. As long as governments continue to distort markets, 
whether through high import tariffs on U.S. steel exports or heavy 
subsidies to their own domestic producers, prices in the marketplace 
for products like steel will not equilibrate based solely on private 
actions.
  Thus, for example, dumping is often the result of a country 
maintaining a closed market in which its companies can maintain a 
relatively high profit margin, which effectively allows those producers 
to cross-subsidize their exports to the United States. A private right 
of action does not reach that conduct. That is conduct that the United 
States must address at its root--which is the government-induced 
distortion of the market, rather than the private pricing decisions of 
the foreign producers.
  What that means for the propose shift of the jurisdiction to the 
Federal courts proposed by my distinguished colleague's amendment is 
that it is premature. Neither he nor I would suggest that the steel 
industry's current

[[Page S13751]]

conditions are shaped solely by private pricing decisions. In fact, the 
principal problem facing the steel industry is the global overcapacity 
created by government protection of their home markets and 
subsidization of their exports to our shores. I therefore, ask my 
colleague to withdraw his amendment in order that the Finance Committee 
could take a look at the proposal and explore the ramifications of the 
far-sighted suggestions in greater depth. Failing that, I must oppose 
the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I join in the Chairman's request and also in his very 
proper remarks about the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I believe it 
has been since 1982 that the Senator began offering amendments to this 
effect. The antidumping laws themselves have a much longer history and 
have been through several major revisions, most recently in the Uruguay 
Round, which we implemented in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 
1994.
  I think the idea of looking into this, as the Chairman suggests, is a 
very good one. But for the moment, sir, it is ineluctably the case that 
the amendment, as drafted, is inconsistent with the World Trade 
Organization's antidumping agreement in a number of significant ways. 
It does not say that we are wrong, but that we would be up against the 
agreed-upon international trading rules.
  We have an international meeting of the World Trade Organization at 
the end of this month in Seattle. I do not think we should arrive there 
this way, particularly as other countries are seeking to reopen 
negotiations once again on these issues, arguing that they are an 
antiquated idea.
  So I join in expressing the hope that the amendment might be 
withdrawn. We can take the idea with us to Seattle as something for 
other countries to consider when they approach our Government about 
modifying our existing laws.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the antidumping procedures are not 
antiquated at all. I have noted some 290 antidumping orders in effect 
as of March 1 of 1999 dealing with a wide variety of products: Steel, 
sugar, towels, raspberries, fresh cut flowers--the list goes on and on.
  The grave difficulty is that the enforcement rests with the executive 
branch, and the executive branch is more concerned with foreign policy 
matters and defense policy than with any specific U.S. industry.
  The trade-off is made, decimating industries and costing thousands of 
jobs in an unfair way. As of July 12 of this year, there were 
bankruptcies of five medium-size steel companies, Acme Steel, Laclede 
Steel, Gulf States, Qualtech, and Geneva.
  When the argument is made that there will be an effect on prices of 
automobile manufacturers, that is true. But our laws are designed to 
provide fairness as fairness and justice relate to the steel industry 
and the auto industry. The auto industry ought not to be able to buy 
steel from a foreign importer where it is dumped--sold in the United 
States at a price lower than it is sold in the foreign country.
  When the distinguished chairman of the committee makes a reference to 
wire rod, it ought to be noted that steel wire rods continued at record 
high levels, more than 14 percent over levels about a year ago in 
September of 1998. The wire rod industry has sustained serious damage, 
losses of some $94 million during the first half of 1999. A petition 
was filed on December 30, 1998, and the President, expected to make his 
determination by September 27, 1999, to postpone that decision, on 
September 28, claimed that the matter was still under review. To date, 
there hasn't been a decision.
  Contrast that with what could be obtained in a court of equity, where 
a decision could be made on affidavits on an ex parte order in 5 days, 
within a few weeks on a preliminary injunction. It is not true that the 
Federal courts are unable to handle these serious matters. They do 
handle complicated antitrust matters all the time and deal with complex 
economic matters. If a damaged party is in a position to prove the 
case, they move into court and get a prompt decision in a court of 
equity, certainly nothing like a year's delay.
  The line pipe industry filed a section 201 petition with the ITC 
claiming that, in 1998, some 331,000 net tons of lime pipe had been 
imported into U.S. markets at an increase of 49.5 percent over 1997. 
This petition was filed on June 30, 1999. The ITC issued an affirmative 
finding on October 28, 1999, but the President is not expected to 
review the matter until December 17 of this year, long after an 
equitable court would have been able to take care of it.
  The lamb issue is similar. On September 30, 1998, the American sheep 
industry filed a section 201 petition to stop the flood of imported 
lamb into the United States. During the 1998 Easter/Passover season, 
U.S. slaughtered lamb prices were at a 4-year low, some 60 cents a 
pounds. On March 26, 1999, the ITC unanimously decided in favor of the 
industry and forwarded its recommendation to the President for decision 
by late May. In this case, the President did not make a decision to 
provide relief to the industry until July 7, 1999, which shows the 
enormous delay in proceedings under the International Trade Commission.
  When the suggestion is made about having the matter taken up in 
Seattle, the grave difficulty is that the international trade 
agreements leave the ultimate discretion with the executive branch, and 
that works to the disadvantage of the American company and the American 
workers. We have provided that there would not be an opportunity for 
judge shopping, to go into a court in a jurisdiction where the industry 
was located where most of the damage had been done, by providing that 
the jurisdiction would be lodged in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia.
  I think it is a matter of fundamental fairness as to whether our 
trade laws will be enforced, our trade laws consistent with GATT.
  We see, again and again, enormous delays, very little effect, and 
then the executive branch taking over with suspension agreements to 
protect the Russians instead of seeing to it that there is justice for 
American industry and for American workers. This goes far beyond the 
question of steel, which is a major matter in my State. It goes to 
virtually every product on the books, as illustrated by the some 290 
products which are subjected to antidumping orders in effect as of 
March 1, 1999.

  This is an idea I have been pushing since 1982. My own experience in 
the court system, as a trial lawyer, shows me that when you go to 
court, you get the laws enforced--you have justice--contrasted with the 
executive branch decision, which will vary on many collateral 
considerations: U.S. foreign policy and U.S. defense policy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. What does it take for a sufficient second?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One-fifth of those Senators present.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. The determination is one-fifth of the Senators present?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Constitution.
  Mr. SPECTER. If there are two Senators present and both agree to a 
rollcall--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The presumption is that there are 51 Senators 
present, and it takes 11 in order to get the yea and nay call.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is a rebuttable presumption, Mr. President. As the 
Chair notes, there are not 51 Senators present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is precluded from determining who is 
present without having a quorum call.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, if the quorum shows there is not a quorum present, 
then what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate cannot proceed.
  Mr. SPECTER. Except by unanimous consent to remove the quorum call?

[[Page S13752]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And by----
  Mr. SPECTER. At which point, the Chair could make a determination if 
there were 51 Senators present until the quorum call, and with the 51 
Senators not being present, the Senate could not proceed, so it is 
circular.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those are the rules of the Senate.
  Mr. SPECTER. I shall move to ask for the yeas and nays at a later 
time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2487

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak earlier about 
the amendment I had introduced, and then we cut off the discussion to 
enable Senator Baucus to have a chance to speak on the floor. I look 
forward to comments by my colleague from Delaware, but I think what I 
will first try to do is summarize this amendment and then hear what my 
colleague, Senator Roth, has to say.
  This amendment would provide for mutually beneficial trade 
relations--that is what we talked about earlier--between the U.S. and 
Caribbean countries by rewarding those countries that comply with 
internationally recognized core labor rights with increased access to 
the U.S. market for certain textile goods.
  Secondly, it would provide for enforceable labor standards. Before 
any of the CBI trade bill's benefits could go into effect, the 
Secretary of Labor would have to determine that a CBI country is 
providing for enforcement of ILO core labor rights. The Secretary would 
make this determination after consulting with labor officials in these 
other countries and after public comments. But the Secretary of Labor 
makes the final decision. U.S. citizens would have a private right of 
action in district court to enforce these provisions.
  This amendment would basically apply the labor standards of Senator 
Feingold's HOPE for Africa bill to CBI countries. Supporters of CBI 
parity claim that NAFTA-like benefits will help the Caribbean workers. 
I want to point out again--because I am an internationalist and I am 
interested in mutually beneficial trade--that an October 1999 report on 
Mexican maquiladoras by the Comite Fronterizo de Obreros shows that 
wages and conditions have actually deteriorated since NAFTA. If NAFTA 
hasn't helped Mexican workers, why would NAFTA parity help CBI workers? 
I already presented data this morning, and I won't do it again.
  In October of 1999, the CFO Border Committee of Women Workers issued 
a report detailing what happened to workers in the Mexican maquiladoras 
since the passage of NAFTA. They found that the maquiladoras paid the 
lowest wages in Mexican industry; that real wages in Mexican 
manufacturing have declined by more than 20 percent since 1994; that 
wage levels have come under attack whenever they are over the threshold 
considered competitive by the maquiladoras; that border workers have 
endured a sharp decline in their standard of living since NAFTA; that 
the practice of using child labor in the maquilas is widespread; and 
that in the name of NAFTA, Mexican companies, aided by their 
government, are ``waging a tireless and surreptitious campaign of dirty 
tricks to stamp out unions in the maquiladoras.'' That is the report.
  The same is true of the CBI countries. Those countries, which have 
the fastest growth in exports to the United States, have experienced 
the steepest decline in wages in the region. Honduran apparel exports 
to the United States increased 2,523 percent over the last 10 years but 
wages declined by 59 percent. In El Salvador, it was 2,512 percent and 
wages declined 27 percent. Jamaica had the least export growth, one 
reason being the rate of unionization in Jamaica.
  You have average wages of 78 cents in Colombia, 69 cents in the 
Dominican Republic, 30 cents in Guatemala, and 23 cents in Nicaragua.
  Basically, what we are saying again to workers in our own country is, 
if you organize and try to bargain collectively to make a better wage, 
these apparel companies will just go to these Caribbean countries. We 
will just basically undercut your right to organize.
  I am in favor of the right of people to organize in our country. What 
we say to the workers in these countries is that if you want to make 
more than 35 cents an hour, or 43 cents an hour, and you join a union, 
or try to bargain collectively, we will deny you your right to do so. 
We don't have any enforceable labor standard to make sure these abuses 
don't continue to take place.
  Sometimes I think the wage earners in our country are portrayed in 
some of this debate as if they are greedy or are portrayed as if they 
look backward and they don't understand this new international economy. 
I think in many ways this debate is about that.
  What would you think if you were working for $8.50 an hour and you 
saw adopted on the floor of the Senate a trade agreement without any 
enforceable labor standard, which meant you were going to be competing 
against people who make 30 cents an hour or against people making 30 
cents an hour in Guatemala? They are never going to get to $8.50. But 
don't we want to take these ILO standards and basic human rights 
standards and make sure they are enforceable? That way you can have the 
uplifting of the living standards of people in these countries.
  Without this amendment, this CBI parity bill is going to merely 
encourage U.S. corporations to set up sweatshops in the Caribbean. This 
is an antisweatshop amendment. This amendment does not require that CBI 
countries match U.S. wages in work and working conditions, although 67 
percent of the American people think the minimum wage of our trading 
partners should be raised to U.S. levels. That is not going to happen. 
But that is not what the amendment does. It only requires these 
countries to respect the core ILO labor standards before we give them 
additional benefits.
  It is a human rights amendment. This amendment basically says we 
should not be encouraging these CBI countries to compete against our 
workers by setting up sweatshops, and it says that we have to make sure 
there is some means of enforcing such antisweatshop standards.
  I want to support trade agreements. People in our country want to 
support trade agreements. But do you want to know something. The reason 
the trade policy is losing its legitimacy with the American people--I 
think probably poll after poll shows that the American people are 
suspicious of these trade agreements--is because they know they put our 
workers in a terrible position because they know there aren't 
enforceable labor standards, because they know there aren't enforceable 
human rights standards, and they tout these trade agreements as being 
great for the apparel industry, great for these corporations, and 
terrible for wage earners.
  That is what this vote on this amendment is all about. Are you on the 
side of working people in our country so that they know they can 
organize in textile plants and the apparel industry, and they won't 
basically be shut out and the companies won't be able to say, goodbye; 
we are going to these other countries because we don't have to abide by 
any labor standards? Are you on the side of these workers or are you on 
the side of these corporations? American workers compete with Caribbean 
apparel workers earning from 23 cents an hour in Nicaragua to 80 cents 
an hour in Colombia. Our workers make about $8.42, on average.

  Who is going to benefit from extending NAFTA benefits to the CBI 
countries without enforceable labor standards?
  All I am asking with this amendment, I say to my colleague from 
Delaware, is enforceable labor standards. It is not going to be the 
textile workers. It is not going to be the workers in the CBI 
countries. It is going to be the American textile companies that want 
to shift production to sweatshops offshore so they can save labor 
costs.
  Can I repeat that one more time?
  Who is going to benefit from this trade legislation without this 
amendment? Who is going to benefit from extending NAFTA benefits to the 
CBI countries without enforceable labor standards? Not American textile 
workers; not working people in our country;

[[Page S13753]]

not the workers in the CBI countries. It is the American textile 
companies that are going to benefit that want to shift production to 
sweatshops offshore so they can save labor costs.
  I say to Republicans and Democrats alike: Whose side are you on? If 
you are on the side of working people, if you are on the side of the 
right of people to be able to organize, if you are on the side of 
working people in these CBI countries and poor people in these CBI 
countries, and you are on the side of human rights of people in these 
countries, at the very minimum, we ought to vote for this amendment 
which will put some teeth into some enforceable labor standards. The 
alternatives to this amendment are unenforceable.
  Let me be clear about that. I don't want a Senator to come to the 
floor and say we have already dealt with labor standards. The CBI 
parity merely includes labor rights as an eligibility criteria which 
can only be enforced by the administration. The administration already 
enforces the GSP program and has never suspended one CBI country 
despite their terrible labor rights record.
  If the administration won't use its GSP leverage to significantly 
improve labor rights, why would it use eligibility criteria? Nobody can 
seriously argue that this administration would deny eligibility to a 
CBI country based on labor rights violations. They have never done it.
  The GAO issued a report last year that listed the various GSP worker 
rights in CBI countries accepted for review. In each case--I gave 
examples earlier, so I will not do it again--the petitions were 
withdrawn usually after some nominal changes in the CBI country labor 
law. But in one CBI country after another, labor laws are flouted, 
often openly.
  There have been 95 worker rights petitions against CBI countries 
under GSP. None, not one, has led to investigation and suspension. The 
ILO is not an acceptable substitute because it has no enforcement 
power.
  This amendment speaks to the compelling need to have enforceable 
labor standards. The ILO has no enforcement power. The managers' 
amendment directs the President to ``seek the establishment in the ILO 
of a mechanism to ensure the effective implementation of each of the 
core labor conventions that ILO members have ratified.'' I commend 
Senators Graham and Moynihan for their effort in this direction. But, 
again, I have to say this on the floor of the Senate. The ILO has no 
enforcement power, so I am not sure how the ILO can ensure effective 
implementation. I think enforceable standards for core ILO labor rights 
need to be built into the trade agreement itself.

  Let me repeat that.
  You have to take these basic ILO labor rights, and you have to make 
sure that enforceable standards are there built into the trade 
agreement. Otherwise, what you have is a CBI parity bill which is going 
to actually provide an incentive for CBI countries to move in the 
opposite direction.
  I welcome the provision in the managers' amendment on increased 
transparency. Let me repeat that. I think it is a good idea. It will be 
useful. But I don't believe it is an enforceable standard that will 
encourage CBI countries to improve conditions for working people. That 
is what this is all about. I don't want anybody to misunderstand this 
amendment. This amendment is based upon a belief in the importance of 
international trade relations. It is based upon the importance of 
making sure we address the standard of living in CBI countries and the 
standard of living of working people in our country. But you can't do 
that unless you have enforceable labor standards. That is what this 
amendment calls for.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I will wait to hear what my 
colleagues have to say.


                           Amendment No. 2402

    (Purpose: To clarify the acts, policies, and practices that are 
considered unreasonable for purposes of section 301 of the Trade Act of 
                                 1974)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I filed on a timely basis an amendment 
numbered 2402. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment, and I ask for consideration of amendment No. 2402.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2402.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. UNREASONABLE ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES.

       Section 301(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2411(d)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking subclause (IV) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(IV) market opportunities, including the toleration by a 
     foreign government of systematic anticompetitive activities, 
     which include predatory pricing, discriminatory pricing, or 
     pricing below cost of production by enterprises or among 
     enterprises in the foreign country (including state trading 
     enterprises and state corporations) if the acts, policies, or 
     practices are inconsistent with commercial practices and have 
     the effect of restricting access of United States goods or 
     services to the foreign market or third country markets,''.

  Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask consent a vote occur on or in relation 
to the pending amendment No. 2487, of Senator Wellstone, and No. 2347, 
the Specter amendment, at 3:30, with 4 minutes prior to each vote for 
explanation. I further ask consent it be in order for me to make a 
motion to table at this point on both amendments with one show of 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to table the above-described amendments, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2402 deals with section 301 
of the Trade Act. As a backdrop for this discussion, I wish to mention 
quickly several pieces of information.
  First, we discuss the issue of trade with a backdrop of a trade 
deficit that is quite alarming. Almost everyone in this country now 
says a $25 billion-a-month trade deficit is unsustainable. The 
merchandise deficit is worse than this. But this is the trade deficit 
of goods and services. The trade deficit is spiking up, up, up, way 
up--a very difficult circumstance for this country. We must do 
something to address it.
  What does this deficit result from? This chart shows imports and 
exports. We can see exports are a flat line, with imports spiking 
dramatically.
  The section 301 trade law remedy, which I intend to discuss briefly 
in a moment, describes something that relates to a trade dispute we 
have not only with Canada but others, a state-sanctioned monopoly 
selling Canadian wheat. This is what has happened with respect to the 
shipment of Canadian durum wheat into this country. It was almost 
nothing and then spikes up. It came down when this country enforced a 
tariff rate quota against Canada. This is unfair trade by a state-
sanctioned monopoly with secret prices. It is unfair to our farmers who 
have flat prices. We produce more than we can use or consume 
domestically, and we have an avalanche of Canadian grain coming into 
our country traded unfairly by a state trading enterprise.
  Is this problem receding or growing? The first 6 months of this year 
is nearly double the first 6 months of last year. Last year was a 
record high. This is just durum wheat, a small issue, but big in North 
Dakota and big for family farmers--just one issue.

  What about a state trading enterprise or state monopoly that trades 
Canadian grain, or agricultural products to Australia, and decides they 
will have a trade relationship that doesn't play fair, for example, in 
Algeria? Assume that Canadians say: We will use our state trading 
enterprise and we intend to ship our grain to Algeria at 10 cents a 
bushel and take away the United States Algerian market. Is it fair 
trade? Is it actionable for the United States to file a 301 trade 
complaint? I think it ought to be. The law is unclear.
  I propose with this amendment a simple process to clarify that 
section

[[Page S13754]]

301, a remedy in trade law, can be applied to predator pricing by state 
trading enterprises in third-country markets. Very simple. The law is 
completely unclear whether this now exists. I think it does; some 
people think it does not. In any event, I think it ought to.
  If a state trading enterprise--for example in Canada, the Canadian 
wheat board--decides to push the United States out of a foreign market 
with predator pricing, is that not actionable by the United States? Of 
course, it should be. Our amendment clarifies that the actions, 
policies, and practices that are unreasonable and inequitable, that 
destroy market opportunities, are actionable under 301.
  Anyone who is proud we have eliminated the fiscal policy deficit in 
our country--and I am among those--ought to be alarmed by this chart. 
Our budget policies have created a fiscal policy that is largely now in 
balance. We do not have growing, swollen Federal budget deficits, and 
that is a success; it belongs to everyone involved in public policy. 
However, this is a failure; this is a deficit that is running out of 
control.
  The trade deficit is a very serious problem. We must remedy it. One 
way to remedy it is to be able to respond to unfair trading practices 
with remedies that work. This green book produced by the U.S. trade 
ambassador describes foreign trade barriers. In the bowels of this book 
rests the story about why our producers are unable to access foreign 
markets. It is a big, thick book, nearly 500 pages, country after 
country after country. One way to address these issues is to decide we 
are going to take action against those that discriminate against 
American producers with unfair trade practices.
  A final point. I turn to Japan in this green book. Japan has agreed 
to gradually reduce tariffs on imports of beef, pork, fresh oranges, 
cheese, et cetera. Japan has a $50 to $60 billion trade surplus with 
us; we have a deficit with them, and it has gone on forever. Even after 
our negotiations on beef, if one buys a T-bone steak in Tokyo this 
afternoon, there is a 40.5-percent tariff on every single pound of beef 
that goes into Japan. It is unforgivable. This country cannot persuade 
our trade partners to trade fairly.
  I ask we include in this piece of legislation something that 
strengthens section 301, that gives the United States a remedy to go 
after unfair trade practices. I hope the majority and minority will 
decide to accept this amendment and take it to conference. It is a 
small amendment. Nonetheless, I think it is very important to American 
producers--not just farmers but manufacturers, all producers.
  I ask for some time to discuss this amendment with staff. Therefore, 
I ask that the amendment be set aside.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2430

 (Purpose: To limit preferential tariff treatment to countries with a 
 gross national product that does not extend 5 times the average gross 
    national product of all eligible sub-Saharan African countries)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment 2430.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2430.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. LIMITATIONS ON PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     may not exercise the authority to extend preferential tariff 
     treatment to any country in sub-Saharan Africa provided for 
     in this Act, unless the President determines that the per 
     capita gross national product of the country (calculated on 
     the basis of the best available information including that of 
     the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) is 
     not more than 5 times the average per capita gross national 
     product of all sub-Saharan African countries eligible for 
     such preferential tariff treatment under this Act.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Delaware that 
I am fully supportive of the efforts to provide opportunity for trade 
that will be mutually beneficial between the United States and Africa 
and the Caribbean. I have been to the floor now on more than one 
occasion talking about the merits of this bill. It is not perfect, but 
it is a good piece of legislation, and one I am convinced will be 
mutually beneficial to the nations included.
  I believe my amendment will make this bill better and will clarify 
something which I think was the intention of this bill but may have 
been lost in the drafting.
  This amendment simply says we will prohibit countries with a per 
capita GDP five times the average of all sub-Saharan African nations 
from participating in the Generalized System of Preferences portion of 
this legislation. Let me explain.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act, I believe, should live up to 
its billing; namely, this legislation should provide an opportunity for 
growth in Africa, not outside of Africa. As I stated last week, this 
bill is also an opportunity for businesses in my home State and for the 
whole country, but it is important we do not lose sight of this 
objective.
  Faced with tight budgets, the United States will not make the same 
contributions to foreign aid as we have in the past. To replace this 
shortfall, we are relying on the great American promise of opportunity. 
In this case, the opportunity is represented by access to the greatest 
market in the world--our market. In essence, this bill is an invitation 
for Africa and the Caribbean to offer their best to America, to compete 
in our marketplace and, in so doing, raise the standard of living on 
both sides of the relationship.
  The success of this new relationship between Africa and America rides 
on the ability of poor African States to capitalize on greater market 
access. Until now, they have been unable to do so, but one of the 
promises of this bill is it will attract additional investment in the 
region. With the necessary infrastructure and capital, Africa may 
compete in international markets and establish the requisites for a 
robust manufacturing base. The question becomes: If new foreign 
investment comes to Africa, where will it be applied?
  I believe it is the intent of my colleagues in the Senate, as well as 
in the House, to assist the countries generally known as sub-Saharan 
Africa. We want to turn around two decades of economic decline in 
places such as Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, and Ghana. That is the point 
of this amendment.
  If the United States is going to take this step, it is important we 
make certain the results assist the intended nations. We need to have 
confidence that the direct investment inspired by this legislation is 
directed to the countries that need it most.
  I restate that this amendment I am offering will try to make a good 
bill even better by prohibiting the Generalized System of Preferences 
to countries with a per capita GDP five times the average of all the 
sub-Saharan nations. The average per capita GDP in Africa, for anyone's 
interest, is $1,798. Thus, the cutoff of participation would be a per 
capita GDP of $8,987. This per capita cutoff is more than $2,500 more 
than South Africa, and also more than the per capita GDP in Russia, 
Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland. It is a reasonable cap.
  Why is this important? This amendment does not seek to target any 
particular country, but it is important to know there is an island 
nation off the coast of Africa, Mauritius, that already has a GDP of 
$10,300. Furthermore, this island is closer to Africa than any other 
continent, and it is hardly the kind of place I believe our colleagues 
or the American public would conceive as part of sub-Saharan Africa.

  One might well wonder how this island of over 1 million people has 
been able to attain such economic success. The answer is a well-
developed textile industry. Through investments, Mauritius has managed 
to create a mature apparel processing shipment and manufacturing hub 
right in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a very tiny island with 
over 1 million inhabitants, but it is well developed. Its GDP would 
make countries in Europe green with envy.

[[Page S13755]]

 Mauritius can proudly boast of unemployment rates that would be 
welcomed in countries in Europe and is unheard of on the African 
Continent.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid if nations similar to this are included in 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, much of, if not all of, the 
opportunity will go to the country that is already successful and 
hardly needs our assistance and directed help.
  If, after a hard-fought battle to bring this legislation to the 
floor, all we accomplish is to raise the standards of a small island 
where standards are already raised and already has a successful 
industry, I do not think we have done much, and we have truly toiled in 
vain.
  Again, this amendment creates objective and dynamic criteria for who 
can and cannot participate. It does not attempt to single out any 
particular place. But I do use that as an example of something I do not 
think is our intention.
  If we are successful, the average per capita GDP of Africa will 
increase as the continent moves forward. A more wealthy nation, such as 
the one I have described, may be eligible to participate later on. 
However, at this juncture, I believe we must remain focused on our 
objective. That is why I urge our manager, the Senator from Delaware, 
to take a look at this amendment. I hope it can be acceptable to both 
sides as we work to make this bill even better.
  I do not think it was our intention to move investments to a place 
that is already developed, and it is not fair to our industry in the 
United States. Our intention is to increase and bolster the 
infrastructure investment in the continent of Africa itself, 
particularly countries that are known as sub-Saharan Africa.
  So with this small amendment, we can correct and make that clear. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and thank them for their 
attention on this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose my colleague's amendment.
  I do so because this amendment will undermine the very objectives 
this legislation is trying to further. In essence, this amendment says 
that if a country has managed to do well in that desperately poor and 
politically unstable region, its access to our market will be cut 
dramatically. I can't imagine a more damaging or more ironic signal to 
send.
  Let me be a little more specific about my concerns. The purpose of 
this legislation is to use tariff preferences to spur investment in the 
sub-Saharan African countries. That investment will help create 
economic growth and create jobs in a region that has suffered so 
terribly for so long.
  My colleague's amendment, however, would tell the Africans to watch 
out if they start succeeding, because their access to our market will 
be taken. It is an ironic signal to send.
  While the signal that it will send to the Africans is unfortunate, 
the signal it will send to investors is particularly damaging.
  Let me explain. This legislation is designed to encourage increased 
investment in the sub-Saharan region. This amendment would undermine 
that objective by telling investors that they cannot count on the 
market access that this legislation provides over the long term. As an 
investor, nothing is more troubling than uncertainty. When investors 
cannot count on what the future will hold in terms of market access, 
then they will avoid the region.
  Given the political and economic uncertainties that already exist in 
that region--and given the disincentives that this creates for 
investors--adding more uncertainty through this amendment would be 
particularly cruel.
  This amendment also ignores the fact that trade among the African 
countries themselves is vital to their economic future and to the 
effectiveness of this legislation. The rules of origin in my 
legislation are specifically designed to encourage the Africans to 
enter into economic partnership amongst themselves.
  Such partnering is particularly important among these nations because 
they each have different resources and capabilities. We should, 
therefore, encourage each of these countries to take advantage of their 
comparative advantage.
  My colleague's amendment, however, would selectively exclude certain 
countries in that region. This, unfortunately, will undermine the 
process of economic integration and partnering among the African 
nations that is vital to sound economic development in that region.
  This amendment seems to suggest that the economic growth of the sub-
Saharan region must rely exclusively on trade with the United States. 
While we would all like to think that that is enough to spur growth and 
investment in that region, we all know that it is not.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent to respond 
for a moment?
  Mr. ROTH. I could not hear the Senator.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to 
respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. Please do.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Delaware should know I am going to 
certainly support this bill. It is not my intention to offer an 
amendment that would in any way weaken this bill. But I also believe 
very strongly that we should not be presenting false hope or providing 
loopholes or providing special treatment; that if our objective is 
clearly to develop Africa the continent of Africa and not islands off 
its shore, if it is to really develop sub-Saharan Africa, then we 
should shape a bill that will actually do this.
  I say to the Senator, without this amendment, which clearly outlines 
that the per capita GDP I am suggesting is five times higher than any 
African nation currently--if we do not adopt this amendment, I could 
see clearly that the industries would just continue to go over to this 
one island off Africa, undercut some of the American industries, not 
result in investment in Africa, and give help to a particular place 
that does not need help. That does not make any sense to me.
  So I offer this amendment in good faith. I have to say, respectfully, 
I do not understand the arguments against this amendment because, 
again, the per capita GDP in Africa is currently $1,798, and the 
business community knows they would be free to continue to do work 
until the per capita income reached $10,000, which is the cap. That 
would be many years down the line and would give them the stability 
they need but not allow us to be circumvented by an island that is not 
part of sub-Saharan Africa and I think could undercut our intentions.
  I thank the Senators for extending me the time to respond. I look 
forward to a vote on this later today.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2487

  Mr. ROTH. These comments I will now make are in connection with the 
Wellstone amendment No. 2487.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Wellstone amendment No. 
2487. This amendment is very similar to one we tabled yesterday, and 
should be tabled today for similar reasons.
  This amendment denies benefits until the U.S. Secretaries of Labor 
and State determine that the beneficiary country is enforcing 
internationally recognized human rights. In and of itself, this is 
unnecessary and duplicative. The managers substitute already contains 
criteria that the President must take into account in determining a 
beneficiary country's eligibility that includes the internationally 
agreed upon core labor standards.
  I will address later in my statement the concern of the Senator from 
Minnesota as to the use of these criteria.
  But this amendment goes further. It would force beneficiary countries 
to guarantee that the head of the national labor agency of that 
country, the U.S. Secretary of Labor, and an international union 
bureaucrat have access to all the private business information and 
records of all business enterprises in that country.
  This undermines the sovereignty of these nations, and represents an 
intrusion on the privacy of their small businesses. The practical 
effect would be

[[Page S13756]]

that no country would ever allow an international union head to peek 
into the business dealings of all of their citizens. These countries 
simply would not choose to enjoy the trade benefits offered in this 
bill--and rightly so.
  This amendment would also create an unprecedented private cause of 
action in U.S. courts if a U.S. citizen wants to seek compliance by 
those countries with the labor standards. This would invite 
unnecessary, wasteful litigation, and would create novel discovery 
activities by U.S. courts, to say the least.
  To sum up, the provisions of this amendment would simply eviscerate 
the goals of this bill and is nothing more than protectionism by 
another name. The labor standards in the managers' substitute and the 
flexibility given to the President provide an appropriate means for 
regular dialog with the beneficiary countries on labor issues.
  Let me be clear that the labor standards in the managers' 
substitute--and which are reflected in current law--are effective. As 
my colleague may know, CBI benefits are linked to a country's 
eligibility for the GSP program. If a country violates one of the 
requirements of the GSP program by, for example, failing to afford 
workers internationally recognized workers' rights, then that country 
will lose eligibility for both GSP and the CBI program.
  The labor standards under the GSP program are not meaningless. In 
fact, 11 countries have been suspended from GSP benefits since 1985 for 
labor standard violations. Six countries are currently suspended. What 
this should tell us is that the system works, both under GSP and under 
my legislation for the CBI countries.
  As evidence of the effectiveness of these criteria, I cite a June 
1998 GAO report that concluded that the GSP and CBI programs have led 
to improvements of workers' rights in the beneficiary countries.
  This is not the only evidence, however. In fact, the best way to tell 
whether the management's amendment presents an effective approach to 
the protection of labor standards is by asking those most affected: 
namely, the workers. I have with me a list of the labor unions in the 
Caribbean and Central America who endorse my approach on this issue. 
These leaders understand that the manager's amendment provides an 
effective way to protect workers, while at the same time spurring 
investment and economic growth that creates jobs.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             CBI Unions That Support CBI Trade Enhancement


                              el salvador

       Ricardo Antonio Soriano, Secretary General of 
     FESINCONSTRANS, Federacion de Sindicatos de la Industria de 
     la Construccion Similares Transportes y, Otras Actividades.
       Anibal Somoza Penate, Secretary General of CGS, 
     Confederacion General de Sindicatos.
       Israel Huiza, Secretary General of FESINTRABS, Federacion 
     de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de Alimentos, Bebidas y 
     Similares.
       Miguel Ramirez, Secretary General of FESTRAES, Federacion 
     Sindical de Trabajadores de El Salvador.
       Miguel Angel Lantan, President of FUNEPRODES, Fundacion 
     para la Educacion Progreso y Desarrollo del Obrero 
     Salvadoreno.
       Salvador Carazo, Secretary General of OSILS, Organizacion 
     de Sindicatos Independientes, Libres Salvadorenos.
       Jesus Amado Perez Marroquin, Secretary General de FLATICOM, 
     Federacion Laboral de Sindicatos, Independientes de 
     Transporte, Comercio y Maquila.
       Juan Jose Huezo, FENASTRAS, Federacion Nacional Sindical de 
     Trabajadores Salvadorenos.
       Juan Edito Juarez, FUSS, Federacion Unitaria Sindical de El 
     Salvador.


                                 haiti

       Fignole St. Cyr, Secretary General, Centrale Autonome des 
     Travailleurs, Haitiens (CATH).
       Marc Antoine Destin, Secretary General, Confederation des 
     Taravailleurs Haitiens (CTH).
       Jacques Pierre, President, Konfederasyon Ouvriye Travaye 
     Ayisyen (KOTA).
       Patrick Numas, Secretary General, Organisation General 
     Independante des Tavailleurs Haitiens (OGITH).


                           dominican republic

       Mariano Negrontejada, Secretary General, Confederacion 
     Nacional de Trabajadores Dominicanos (CNTD).
       Jacobo Ramos, Secretary General, Federacion Unitaria de 
     Trabajadores de Zonas Francas (FENATRAZONAS).


                                honduras

       Israel Salina, Secretary General, Confederacion Unitaria de 
     Trabajadores de Honduras (CUTH).
       Felicito Avila Ordonez, President, Central General de 
     Trabajadores (CMT).
       Felicito Avila Ordonez, President, Central de Trabajadores.


                                jamaica

       Lloyd Goodleigh, General Secretary, Jamaica Confederation 
     of Trade Unions.

  Mr. ROTH. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in the discussion of this trade bill, we 
hear a lot of talk about the different things involved in trade and how 
we want to lift countries up; that the essence of this trade bill 
before us is to open up the avenues and the corridors of free trade so 
people living in Third World countries, in Africa specifically, can 
begin to enjoy some of the benefits of increased production, increased 
distribution of goods and services, and an increased standard of 
living. That is what the proponents of the trade bill are arguing.
  I am not here to argue against that. I believe free trade, if it is 
practiced as free trade, it can have genuine beneficial effects on all 
parties involved. There are anomalies, however, in the trade structure 
that keep the benefits of open and free trade from being genuinely and 
broadly distributed among people in Third World countries. There are a 
lot of these, but I believe the single most important feature, 
institution or practice of Third World countries that inhibits their 
economic growth, inhibits their social growth, even if they are allowed 
into a free trade structure, is the use and practice of abusive child 
labor.
  Child labor is the last vestige of slavery on the face of the Earth. 
It is widespread. It is condoned--if not openly, at least passively--by 
many of the major industrial nations of the world. I think it is time 
we get rid of this last vestige of slavery: child labor.
  I have an amendment that is very simple and straightforward. It 
builds on the international consensus that emerged from the ILO 
conference in Geneva this summer in which the delegates unanimously 
adopted a convention to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. The 
amendment simply states that in order to be eligible for the trade 
benefits in this bill, a country must meet and effectively enforce the 
standards regarding child labor, as established by the ILO convention 
182 for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. It is just 
that simple. In other words, if a country wants the benefits of this 
trade bill, they must meet and effectively enforce the standards of the 
recently adopted ILO convention 182.
  This convention defines the worst forms of child labor as: all forms 
of slavery, debt bondage, forced or compulsory labor, or the sale and 
trafficking of children, including forced or compulsory recruitment of 
children for use in armed conflict; child prostitution, children 
producing and trafficking narcotic drugs; or any other work which by 
its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely 
to harm the health, the safety, and the morals of children. These are 
the provisions of ILO convention 182.
  As I stated earlier, for the first time in history, this last June, 
the world spoke with one voice in opposition to abusive and 
exploitative child labor. Countries from across the political, 
economic, and religious spectrum--from Jewish to Moslem, from Buddhist 
to Christians--came together to proclaim unequivocally that ``abusive 
and exploitative child labor is a practice which will not be tolerated 
and must be abolished.''
  So gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is 
an acceptable practice because of a country's economic circumstances. 
Gone is the argument that abusive and exploitative child labor is 
acceptable because of cultural traditions. And gone is the argument 
that abusive and exploitative child labor is a necessary evil on the 
road to economic development. When this convention was approved, the 
United States and the international community as a whole laid these 
arguments to rest and laid the groundwork

[[Page S13757]]

to begin the process of ending the scourge of abusive and exploitative 
child labor.
  Additionally, for the first time in its history, the U.S. tripartite 
group to the ILO--consisting of representatives from government, 
business, and labor--unanimously agreed on the final version of the ILO 
convention 182.
  I believe strongly that the time has come to say to countries: If you 
want the trade benefits outlined in this bill, you must, at a minimum, 
enforce international standards on abusive and exploitative child 
labor. That is at a minimum.

  So let me be clear about what is meant by abusive and exploitative 
child labor. This is not about kids working on the family farm. It is 
not about kids who work after school. There is nothing wrong with that. 
I worked in my youth when I was in school. Probably most of us in the 
Chamber today worked when we were young and in school. There is nothing 
wrong with that, and that is not what we are talking about. The 
convention that the ILO adopted in June deals with children who are 
chained to looms, who handle dangerous chemicals, who ingest metal dust 
from working around machinery, children who are forced to sell illegal 
drugs, forced into prostitution, forced into armed conflict, forced to 
work in factories where furnace temperatures exceed 1,500 degrees.
  Let me refer to this chart again and repeat, for the sake of 
emphasis, what the convention does. It abolishes the harshest forms of 
child labor, including child slavery, child bondage, child 
prostitution, use of children in pornography, trafficking in children, 
the forced recruitment of children for armed conflict, the recruitment 
of children in the production or sale of narcotics, and hazardous work 
by children. Those are the abusive and exploitative forms of child 
labor that are covered.
  According to the ILO, in Latin America and the Caribbean there are an 
estimated 17 million children working. In Africa--and we are on the 
Africa trade bill--80 million children are working. In Asia, about 153 
million children are working. There are about half a million in 
Oceania, in the islands of the southwest Pacific. This totals about 250 
million children world wide that are working full time.
  They are forced to work with no protective equipment under hazardous 
and slave-like conditions. They endure long hours for little or no 
compensation. They simply work only for the economic gain of others. 
They are denied an education and denied the opportunity to grow and 
develop.
  I paint this in sharp contrast to afterschool jobs that kids have so 
they can have some more spending money to buy the latest CD. These kids 
are not buying CDs. They are not even in school. They are kept out of 
school and are forced to work.
  Again, I know firsthand what this is about. I have some charts here, 
some pictures. Last year, my legislative assistant, Rosemary Gutierrez, 
and I traveled to several countries in South Asia to investigate child 
labor. This happens to be a picture that was taken outside of a 
compound in Katmandu, Nepal. This was on a Sunday evening, shortly 
after dark, maybe about 7 or 7:30 in the evening. I had heard repeated 
stories about children who were working, making carpets, children as 
young as 5 to 7 years of age. But I also knew from others I had talked 
to that if you asked to visit one of these plants, by the time you got 
there, they had the kids out the back door. So nobody could ever see 
them.
  Well, it turned out that, through mutual acquaintances, we located a 
young man--I don't know how old he is now, maybe 21 or 22 years old--
who had been a former child laborer in one of these plants. He knew of 
a plant where he knew the guard at the gate on this Sunday evening in 
question. So what we did is, we got in an unmarked car and we drove to 
the outskirts of Katmandu and went up to this compound. Later, we found 
out we were mistaken and the owner was in fact there. So we went up to 
the gate, four or five of us, with this young Nepalese man. He got us 
in the gate.
  This was the picture I took outside the gate. There is a sign posted 
very prominently in Nepalese and in English. As you can see, it says, 
``Child labour under the age of 14 is strictly prohibited.'' They have 
these signs all over. So I took a picture of it.
  We went to the gate of this compound. We walked down a fairly narrow 
alleyway. There were low-lying buildings on our left and right. We went 
down a few hundred yards and turned to our left to this carpet factory. 
We went into the carpet factory. Mind you, this is on a Sunday evening, 
and it is about 7:30. Here is what we found. I can tell you this is 
what we found because I took the picture. There were dozens and dozens 
of kids working in this building, with a lot of dust around; carpets 
put off a lot of dust when they make them. I took this picture of these 
two kids. I had the young man who spoke Nepalese there, and we were 
able to talk to them a little.

  As best I could figure out, he was about 7 and she was about 8. This 
was at 7:30 in the evening. You can't see because the flashbulb wasn't 
strong enough, but there are dozens of children sitting in rows up and 
down the aisles working.
  Here is a better picture, and I am in it. My staff assistant took 
this picture. These kids are 8, 9, 10, 11 years old, all the way back 
here, on both sides, up and down, working at 7:30 at night. These are 
kids who work probably 12 to 14 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. When 
they are not working, they are taken out of here to those low-lying 
buildings where they sleep and eat; that is where they live. They are 
not allowed to go out. They are not allowed to go out on the streets. 
They are not allowed to get an education, go to school. They go from 
their little Quonset hut, where they stay like stacks of cord wood. 
Then they are herded in here, work 12 to 14 hours a day, and they are 
herded back into the building. They are 7, 8, 9 years of age.
  I said: What happens when they get to be 12, 13, or 14? I didn't see 
any children there that old there. Well, sometimes the boys go into 
different kinds of work, and the girls are sold into prostitution. You 
don't have to take my word for that; you can talk with anybody in the 
U.N., the ILO, and talk about the trafficking of young girls from Nepal 
to India, some as far away as Saudi Arabia.
  I met with some young girls who had been sold into prostitution. 
There is an organization in Nepal of women trying to repatriate these 
young women, get them back to their country and their villages. Some 
were sent as far away as Saudi Arabia. Trafficking in prostitution--
that is what we are talking about in this amendment. We are not talking 
about kids working after school. We are talking about these kids. 
Should a country that permits this and condones this and doesn't take 
active steps to stop it--should they, I ask you, get the benefits of 
this trade bill?
  Here is another kid. I did not take this picture. This is not my 
picture. I admit that. But there is a young boy in the Sialkot region 
of Pakistan. He is 8 years old. His name is Mohammad Ashraf Irfan. You 
may not be able to see it from there, but he is making surgical 
equipment. These are scissors used in surgery that are shipped to this 
country. Think about that. Think about that the next time you go into 
the doctor's office. It is clean, it is sterile, you have a wound, and 
they are going to sew you up or they are going to make you well again. 
You see those little scissors come out, or the little knife, and the 
things they use. Think about Ashraf here who is 8 years old. Look at 
him. The next time you go into a doctor's office, think about Ashraf 
and think about hundreds of thousands like him sitting there day after 
day. He has no protective goggles, no protective equipment on his 
hands, and he is making surgical equipment to be used in the finest of 
doctor's offices and hospitals in Europe and America. That is what we 
are talking about in this amendment.
  I believe our goal must be to encourage and to persuade other 
countries to build on the prosperity that comes with trade and to lift 
their standards up. Exploited child labor in other countries not only 
penalize Ashraf to a lifetime of illiteracy, low wages, bad health, and 
not only does it condemn him to that, and hurt his life, but the fact 
they exploit him means that it unfairly puts workers in our country and 
other countries at a disadvantage.
  You can't compete with slavery. This is slavery. You can dress it up 
and call it what you want. But this is about the nearest thing you can 
get to slavery.

[[Page S13758]]

 Yet, unfortunately, the legislation before us does not address this 
issue. It simply relies on the criteria of the Generalized System of 
Preferences, or GSP, to extend countries trade benefits.
  Is that adequate to what we know is going on in the world?
  This criteria in GSP has been on the books since 1984--15 years. And 
child labor today is worse than it was 15 years ago.
  Let me explain that the USTR, our own Trade Representative office, in 
its implementation and enforcement of GSP, has, I believe, abused the 
language in the statute that calls for taking steps to afford respect 
for workers' rights, including child labor. They have interpreted that 
any gesture made by a country will satisfy the requirements of GSP.
  There is a list of five internationally recognized workers' rights 
provisions in GSP. Here they are: One, the right of association; two, 
the right to organize and bargain collectively; three, a prohibition on 
the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; four, a minimum age 
for employment of children; five, acceptable conditions of work with 
respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and 
health.
  If a country takes steps--we don't say how big a step--if a country 
takes one teeny, little bit of a step in any one of those areas, they 
are allowed GSP benefits. They may have the most abusive forms of child 
labor, but if they have taken steps --for example, to have the right of 
free association--there you go. They have satisfied the requirements. 
Quite frankly, these countries should be taking steps in all five areas 
and enforcing the laws they have on the books.
  The fact is, there are laws in Nepal against the use of child labor 
in these looms. There are laws in Pakistan against what Ashraf Irfan is 
doing. They all have laws on the books. They are just not enforcing 
them. Many of these countries have been able to provide cosmetic and 
unenforceable actions. Then they are recognized as having taken steps, 
and they are off the hook. In fact, the principal sponsor of the GSP 
criteria, an individual I served with in the House of Representatives, 
Representative Don Pease, wanted to set a high standard to ensure that 
countries not only have laws on their books with regard to these rights 
and minimum age requirements but that they were also being 
enforced. When it got to conference, it was watered down. We have that 
today. If they meet just one of those criteria, that is all they have 
to do.

  Fifteen years later after GSP, we now have a universal standard 
adopted this June by the ILO in Geneva. The ILO convention 182 is a 
well-defined, internationally accepted standard that I believe should 
be the criteria in granting any country U.S. trade benefits. ILO 
convention 182 that will hold everyone to one real and enforceable 
standard that was unanimously agreed to in Geneva this past June.
  Again, as I have said before, I believe in free trade. I voted for 
the North American Free Trade Agreement. But I also believe in a level 
playing field. I also believe you should use trade to try to lift 
countries up--not lift countries up on the backs of children but to 
lift those countries up alongside of us.
  U.S. workers can't compete with slaves. U.S. workers can't compete 
with 8-year-old kids working 12 and 14 hours a day who are paid almost 
nothing. You can dress it up any way you want. You can use whatever 
fancy words and language you want. That is slavery. These kids don't 
have a choice. They are forced to work in unbearable conditions. They 
don't have a choice. They do not have any freedom and liberty. Is that 
not the definition of slavery? Children are exploited for the economic 
gain of others. The child loses, the family loses, this country loses, 
and we in the world lose, too.
  Every child lost to the workplace in this manner is a child who will 
not receive an education, learn a valuable skill, and help this country 
develop economically, or become a more active participant in the global 
market. When just one child is exploited in this manner, every one of 
us is diminished.
  Recently, I came across a startling statistic. According to the 
UNICEF report entitled ``The State of the World's Children 1999,'' 
nearly 1 billion people will enter the 21st century--the new 
millennium--1 billion people will enter unable to read a book, or 
unable to sign their name because they are illiterate. This is a 
formula for instability, violence, and conflict down the road.
  Nearly one-sixth of all humanity--think about it; three and a half 
times the population of the United States--next year won't even be able 
to read a book or sign their name.
  This is the reason: Because they were denied an education when they 
were young. They were forced to work in front of rug looms, or making 
surgical equipment, glassware, and metals in mines and places such as 
that.
  I believe it is shocking. I believe children making pennies a day 
spells disaster and conflict down the road. In cold, hard, economic 
terms, children making pennies a day will never buy a computer, they 
will never buy the software to run it, they will never purchase the 
latest music CD or a VCR to play American-made movies.
  By allowing abusive and exploitative child labor to continue, we not 
only doom the child to a future of poverty and destitution, we doom 
future markets for American goods and services.
  Why in our trade bill do we not just look one foot in front of our 
nose? We think about next year or the year after. Why not think about 
10, 15, or 20 years from now, when 8-year-old Ashraf Irfan is in his 
twenties and thirties? What will he be buying? Will he buy a computer? 
Will he buy software and log on to the Internet? Will he buy clothes? 
No; he will be functionally illiterate. He will go to a store and watch 
television and see how the rest of the world lives and say, Why do I 
live like this?
  It is ripe for revolutions, wars, insurrections, and instability all 
over the world.
  Some say child labor shouldn't be dealt with in trade measures. I 
think this is wrongheaded thinking and closed minded. I believe we 
should be addressing child labor issues on trade measures. After all, 
we are ultimately talking about our trade policy. Not too long ago, 
agreements on intellectual property rights were not considered measures 
to be addressed by trade agreements. In the beginning, only tariffs and 
quotas were addressed by GATT because they were the most visible trade-
distorting practices.
  As time went on and as we began to develop more and more intellectual 
property in this country, we said we ought to include intellectual 
property rights and services, too. Now they have become an integral 
part of our trade agreements. The trade bill two years ago had several 
pages on intellectual property rights and one small, ineffectual 
paragraph on child labor. Now the WTO will consider rules dealing with 
foreign direct investment. That is another new step. A part of our 
trade agreements will now involve foreign direct investment and 
competition policy.
  When I looked at the trade bill two years ago and saw all the pages 
dealing with intellectual property rights and I saw the little, 
ineffectual paragraph that actually turned the clock back on child 
labor, I thought to myself, if we can protect a song, can't we protect 
a kid? Think about it. We are going to protect someone's song so it 
can't be stolen, used, recorded, or sung by anybody else in the world--
we can protect that; but we can't protect this kid? Tell me that child 
labor is not an apt policy for trade policy and trade bills. I believe 
it is time we do this. We as a nation cannot ignore what is happening.
  In 1993, this Senate put itself on record in opposition to the 
exploitation of children for economic gain by passing a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that I submitted. That was in 1993. It was a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. Nonetheless, it passed. In 1994, I requested 
the Department of Labor to begin a series of reports on child labor. 
These reports now consist of five volumes representing the most 
comprehensive documentation ever assembled by the Government on this 
issue. Earlier this year, President Clinton issued an Executive order 
prohibiting the U.S. Government from procuring items made by forced or 
indentured child labor. We are making progress.
  Some may say we have not even ratified convention 182 ourselves, so 
how do we expect others to abide by that? The chairman of the 
committee, Senator Helms, had a hearing about 2

[[Page S13759]]

weeks ago on this. I thought it was a great hearing. I am pleased to 
report to my colleagues, just today the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee reported out the new ILO convention. I am hopeful we will 
have it on the floor to get a unanimous vote and to ratify that before 
we leave this year. I have every reason to believe we will before we 
leave this year.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We are going to have a couple of votes at 3:30. There is no 
time agreement. The Senator may speak as long he desires. Both managers 
of the bill are in a position to accept the amendment of the Senator 
or, if the Senator desires a recorded vote, we can have that, too. They 
are willing to accept this amendment. There is an order in effect that 
there will be two votes at 3:30.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will abruptly finish my remarks.
  Mr. REID. And then make a decision.
  Mr. HARKIN. Normally, I would say fine to accept it, but since the 
Foreign Relations Committee passed it out this morning and I believe we 
will have it before the Senate before the end of the year, I think it 
is important for the Senate to express itself on this issue on the 
forms of abusive and exploitative child labor. It is important we do 
that. We have taken so many steps and come so far, we ought to do that. 
I am hopeful my colleagues will support this.
  My amendment is cosponsored by Senator Helms, the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and Mr. Wellstone from Minnesota. There is 
a pretty broad philosophical spectrum encompassed on this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside, and I ask to call up my amendment No. 2495.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, what was the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. HARKIN. To set aside the amendment and call up my amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are trying to work out a time sequence. 
The Landrieu amendment is now pending. It is my understanding that we 
have two votes set and Landrieu makes three votes; is the Senator 
willing to make his the fourth vote in that stack?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes; I have no problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor and has 
stated a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside, and I ask that my amendment No. 2495 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend, he has 
no problem, if his amendment is called up, having his the fourth after 
these other three?
  Mr. HARKIN. No. I don't have any problem with that, no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ROTH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware objects. Objection 
is heard. The Senator from Iowa continues to have the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought I had just agreed to have the 
amendment voted on.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will yield for a question to my colleague from Nevada. 
We are trying to work out an arrangement.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, and the manager of the bill, this is my 
understanding of what the managers want to occur. We already have two 
amendments pending and there are motions to table those two amendments. 
The Landrieu amendment is going to come on as the third matter. They 
also want to move to table that. That can only be done while the 
amendment is pending. So that amendment is pending now.
  I suggest there be a tabling motion made and then the Senator will 
offer his amendment, and his amendment be voted up or down.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me see if I can revise my unanimous 
consent.
  I ask unanimous consent after the Landrieu amendment is disposed of, 
in whatever form that disposal may take, that I be recognized to call 
up my amendment, amendment No. 2495, and to have the yeas and nays on 
that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator is advised he 
cannot obtain the yeas and nays by unanimous consent. That part of his 
consent cannot be granted.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, we will have the unanimous consent 
request. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask consent a vote occur on or in relation 
to the pending amendment--the Landrieu amendment to H.R. 434 in the 
voting sequence occurring at 3:30 p.m. today, with all the parameters 
provided for the first two amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2505

    (Purpose: To authorize the extension of permanent normal trade 
      relations to Albania and Kyrgyzstan, and for other purposes)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send to the desk the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2505.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, President Clinton recently emphasized that 
while expanding trade, we also need to have basic labor standards so 
that people who work receive the dignity and reward of their work. The 
President said the WTO should create a working group in Seattle on 
trade and labor and asked, ``How we can deny the legitimacy or the 
linking of these issues, trade and labor, in a global economy?''
  How, indeed? The rhetoric sounds right--that we should link the 
granting of trade benefits to whether countries are abiding by 
internationally recognized standards on such things as child labor, 
collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational 
health and safety and other worker rights. This should be especially 
the case when these countries have freely undertaken such obligations 
in treaties or conventions. This is a laudable objective and one that 
the Administration is now promoting. But how do we implement this 
objective?
  We have our first test case under consideration before the Senate 
today. We should begin to promote standards on such things as child 
labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, 
occupational health and safety and other worker rights as part of our 
trade relationships by considering progress on those goals when 
unilaterally granting a trade benefit. In considering whether to grant 
a country a unilateral trade benefit, the President surely ought to 
consider the extent to which that country has undertaken its own 
existing obligations, obligations under treaties and conventions it has 
freely entered into relative to child labor, collective bargaining, the 
use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and safety and 
other worker rights. Unfortunately, in the bill under consideration 
today, the President is not required to even consider this factor.
  Mr. President, the trade bill we are considering contains two 
provisions that would provide trade benefits to certain countries 
unilaterally without asking that reciprocal action be taken.
  This bill is flawed and it doesn't live up to our repeatedly stated 
beliefs. It contains no required consideration of

[[Page S13760]]

the extent to which a beneficiary country has undertaken to live up to 
its own commitments to internationally recognized standards on such 
things as child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or coerced 
labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights, before 
the country may receive the trade benefit conferred in the bill. I 
believe the extent to which a country demonstrates a willingness to 
abide by its own commitments freely undertaken, be it to labor 
standards, or anything else, should be an element that is at least 
considered when determining a country's eligibility to receive special 
benefits.
  As the bill is currently written, before granting the trade benefits, 
the President must make certain determinations, such as determining if 
the country has demonstrated a commitment to undertake WTO obligations 
and to take steps to join the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas 
(FTAA). Only as a secondary consideration, the President may consider, 
when determining if the country has demonstrated a commitment to the 
WTO and FTAA, additional criteria, including the extent to which the 
country provides internationally recognized worker rights.
  This is not strong enough because it is a discretionary standard that 
the President is not required to even consider and it is also only a 
secondary consideration that can be taken into account when making a 
determination as to whether a country has demonstrated a commitment to 
pursue certain other ends. It is not an end in itself.
  It seems to me that the type of trade benefit we are considering 
today, a one-way-granting by the United States of duty free treatment, 
is a logical place to include a consideration of whether a country is 
attempting to live up to its own obligations it has freely undertaken 
with regard to standards on such things as child labor, collective 
bargaining, use of forced or coerced labor, occupational health and 
safety and other worker rights.
  The President has said he wants to start to link trade and labor 
standards and will take steps to try to achieve this in the next round 
of WTO negotiations starting in Seattle. We should start here at home 
by requiring that the extent to which a beneficiary country has 
demonstrated a commitment to abide by obligations it has already 
undertaken in treaties and conventions it has freely entered into 
relative to child labor, collective bargaining, use of forced or 
coerced labor, occupational health and safety and other worker rights. 
If we can't even include such a consideration in today's legislation, 
how do we expect to succeed in including such provisions in a 
multilateral negotiation of over 130 member nations?
  Mr. President, I am offering an amendment which would require 
consideration of internationally recognized labor standards when 
determining if a CBI country may benefit from unilateral trade 
preferences. My amendment would require the President, when designating 
a CBTEA beneficiary country, to consider the extent to which the 
country provides internationally recognized worker rights, such as the 
right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively; 
prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or compulsory labor and a 
minimum age for the employment of children.
  Most CBI countries are signatories of the International Labor 
Organization conventions. Considering the extent to which these 
countries abide by their own international obligations is the least we 
can do when considering whether they deserve to receive unilateral 
trade preferences from us.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Roth, for including in the manager's package an 
amendment by Mr. Sarbanes and myself expressing the sense of the 
Congress with respect to the issue of debt relief for poor countries. 
Our resolution simply expresses the desire of this body to work with 
the President and the international community to forgive the debt owed 
to us by the world's poorest countries in exchange for commitments from 
these countries to reform their economies and work toward a better 
quality of life for their people. This follows on legislation we 
introduced earlier this month to accomplish this important objective.
  Our effort today is premised on the notion that we must help these 
poverty-stricken nations break the vicious cycle of debt and give them 
the economic opportunity to liberate their futures. This issue has 
united people of diverse interests and backgrounds from all around the 
world. There is a growing sense across the cultural and political 
spectrum that debt burdens are a major impediment to economic reform 
and the alleviation of the abject poverty facing the world's poorest 
countries. And there is increasing certainty that debt forgiveness--if 
done right--can be a positive force for change in the developing world. 
Our resolution makes clear that the objectives of debt relief should be 
the promotion of policies that promote economic growth, openness to 
trade and investment, and the development of free markets. I am glad 
the full Senate is joining us in this endeavor.
  Today, Mr. President, the world's poorest countries owe an average of 
$400 for every man, woman, and child within their borders. This is much 
more than most people in these countries make in a year--in fact more 
than one billion people on Earth today live on less than a dollar a 
day. Debt service payments in many cases consume a majority of a poor 
country's annual budget, leaving scarce domestic resources for economic 
restructuring or such vital human services as education, clean water 
and sanitary living conditions. In Tanzania, for example, debt payments 
would require nearly four-fifths of the government's budget. In a 
country where one child in six dies before the age of five, little 
money remains to finance initiatives that would improve the country's 
economic prospects, its openness to trade and investment, or the 
standard of living of its people. Among sub-Saharan African countries--
many of the very countries we're looking to help in the trade package 
before us today--one in five adults can't read or write.
  Mr. President, the problems in the developing countries that yield 
such grim statistics will never be solved without a monumental 
commitment of will from their leaders, their citizens, and the outside 
world. We cannot solve all these problems today. Rather, we are simply 
affirming to the world that the small step of debt relief is one that 
can and should be taken without delay.
  The effort to forgive the debts of the world's poorest countries has 
been ongoing for more than a decade. During this time the international 
community and the G7 came to the realization that the world's poorest 
countries are simply unable to repay the debt they owe to foreign 
creditors. What's more, the payments that are being made are hampering 
progress toward more free, open, and economically vibrant economies. 
The external debt for many developing nations is more than twice their 
gross domestic product, leaving many unable to even make interest 
payments. We must accept the fact that this debt is unpayable. The 
question is not whether we'll ever get paid back, but rather what we 
can encourage these heavily indebted countries to do for themselves in 
exchange for our forgiveness.
  In Uganda, for example, debt relief obtained under the existing debt 
forgiveness programs has cleared the way for a doubling of classroom 
size, allowing twice as many children to attend school as before. This 
type of benefit is real. It is tangible. And it will bring untold 
benefits to the country in future years. We must do more to encourage 
these types of programs and debt relief is one vehicle that can help 
effect real change in the developing world.
  Prudent debt relief is in all of our best interests. It is an 
investment in the commitment of the world's poorest countries to 
implement sound economic reforms and help their people live longer, 
healthier and more prosperous lives.
  Our amendment today is another step toward this goal and I thank my 
colleagues for their support.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program.
  Let me begin by stating--as others have on this issue--that I believe 
strongly in the concept of free and fair trade, and I have always 
supported legislation that opens foreign markets, assures that trade 
agreements are enforceable, and provides the opportunity

[[Page S13761]]

for competitive U.S. firms to do business overseas. I support 
legislation of this type because I feel that in the long run it 
increases the economic welfare of our nation and leads to substantial 
and measureable benefits for Americans. Exports now generate over one-
third of all economic growth in the United States. Export jobs pay ten 
to fifteen percent more than the average wage. Depending upon who you 
listen to, it has generated anywhere from two to eleven million jobs 
over the last ten years. Without expanded trade brought on as a result 
of globalization, we will end up fighting over an ever-decreasing 
domestic economic pie. Trade is inevitable, it is the terms of trade 
that we debate.
  And this debate is important, because while many Americans are 
enjoying unprecedented opportunities as a result of the process of 
globalization, others are not so fortunate. Clearly, free trade has 
negative attributes, and the United States has not been immune to them. 
In my state alone over the last two years we have seen several thousand 
people laid off in trade-related plant closures--from high-tech to 
apparel to copper. Many more New Mexicans have been forced to find 
other work because they can no longer compete on an international 
basis. The vast majority of these people live in rural communities 
where there really isn't anything else for them to do in terms of 
employment. When I talk to these people, they ask me: Where am I 
supposed to work now? Where do I find a job with a salary that allows 
me to support a family, own a house, put food on the table, and live a 
decent life? Where are the benefits of free trade for me now that my 
company has gone overseas? What good are cheaper products when I no 
longer have a salary to pay for them?
  These are tough questions, especially from someone who is trying to 
pay a mortgage, or get their children an education, or buy food for the 
table, and they deserve an answer. In my opinion, the answer does not 
lie in protectionism, as many would suggest, because it is no longer a 
legitimate option. It is impossible to go back in time and trade only 
within our own borders. Instead the answer lies in the development of 
programs that provide people with the skills to be gainfully employed 
and provide companies with the tools so they can become internationally 
competitive. It is through workforce development and technological 
innovation. Globalization is inevitable. It is not going to stop. 
Therefore, the question for us in this Chamber is: How we can manage it 
to benefit the national interest of the United States? How can we make 
it work for our people? How can we establish an environment where high-
wage jobs can be obtained and communities sustained?
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is supposed to do just that. 
As my good friend and colleague Senator Moynihan has pointed out on the 
floor many times, this program and its component parts are part of a 
very reasonable agreement with American workers and companies: If 
Americans lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements entered into 
by the U.S. Government, then the U.S. government should assist these 
Americans in finding new employment with equivalent or better wages. If 
the U.S. government supports an open trading system, it is responsible 
to repair the negative impacts this policy has on its citizens. If you 
lose a job because of U.S. trade policy, you should have some help from 
the U.S. Government in getting unemployment benefits and retraining to 
get a new job that pays you as much or more as you were getting before.
  And, since its inception, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program has 
attempted to do just that. It has over the years consistently helped 
individuals and companies in communities across the United States deal 
with the transitions that are an inevitable part of a changing 
international economic system. It helps people that can work and want 
to work to continue to work in productive jobs that contribute to the 
economic welfare of our country.
  But, as good as the Trade Adjustment Assistance program is, it is not 
without flaws, and these flaws frequently make the program difficult to 
use for those that need it most. Even worse, in some cases, it is 
simply unavailable for those who need it most.
  What are some concrete examples of these problems? In my state of New 
Mexico, we have over the last few years seen a serious lack of 
coordination between the federal and state agencies responsible for the 
provision of unemployment benefits and retraining, and we have seen a 
near complete incompatibility of application procedures. This lack of 
harmonization has made potential recipients run in circles to find 
information and advice that would help them find viable work.
  We have passed legislation that provides benefits to some individuals 
that are not available to others. For instance, the NAFTA Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program provides unemployment benefits and 
retraining for those who have been negatively impacted by trade or 
shifts in production overseas, but the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
program only provides retraining in the case of former, not the latter. 
Furthermore, secondary workers--individuals who with their company 
provide direct inputs into primary manufacturing facilities--are not 
eligible for any support at all, this in spite of the fact that they 
too may lose their jobs when a primary facility is forced to close. How 
do you explain these programmatic differences to workers who need help, 
and need it now?
  Another problem: Trade Adjustment Assistance provides assistance to 
workers in specific communities, but it does not provide assistance to 
those communities that have been significantly impacted by trade or 
shifts in production overseas. No evaluation of community needs, no 
strategic plan for economic development, no technical assistance to 
help a community recover from what has happened. Thus, while we provide 
federal funds so workers can retrain to find employment, in many cases 
there is no simply gainful employment to be had in the community. There 
is no work to retrain for that pays a living wage. In other words, 
there is no linkage between retraining programs and community workforce 
needs. Individuals thus have a choice: stay in town on unemployment 
until it runs out, take a lesser paying job that disallows them from 
providing for themselves and their family, or relocate to a region that 
has employment to offer. In either case, the community loses. And this 
is happening with disturbing frequency not only in New Mexico, but in 
rural communities across the United States. Ask any of my colleagues, 
and they will tell you they have heard the same story.

  I would argue that in some very specific cases foreign trade or the 
transfer of production overseas has had a such an impact on a community 
that it is analogous to a natural disaster. The impact on the community 
is so severe, pervasive, and painful that it is equivalent to a flood, 
tornado, or earthquake. In many cases, not just individuals, but an 
entire community has become dislocated, and is not prepared as a 
political or economic entity to take the steps needed to recover. Not 
only the individuals, but the community, needs help to get back on its 
feet.
  So what must be done in these circumstances? In this country we have 
organized a unique approach to first anticipate, and then respond to, 
natural disasters--the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA--
and it is designed to integrate the federal/state/local activities to 
obtain optimal recovery. Why not have this kind of coordinated program 
for trade? We organize this kind of response through the Department of 
Defense and the Office of Economic Adjustment when a military base 
closes in a community. Why not have such a program for communities 
affected by trade? I am not talking about giving funds to those in need 
in perpetuity. I am talking about establishing a coherent strategic 
plan with an entry and exit policy that helps individuals and 
communities develop a workforce plan, create good jobs for their 
citizens, and become viable economic competitors in the international 
marketplace.
  The time is ripe to examine these issues, and in my view it is time 
to think outside the box. There are too many inconsistencies in 
existing unemployment and re-training benefit programs--Trade 
Adjustment Assistance, NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Job 
Training Partnership Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and 
unemployment insurance--and they must be examined so we can make them 
efficient and effective mechanisms for our

[[Page S13762]]

workers. In my view, these problems are not necessarily the fault of 
the Department of Labor, which administers many of the programs I refer 
to today. The problems are indicative of an ad hoc approach to policy 
formation over the years, and it is time to align these programs so 
they will have the maximum benefit effect for those who need them. 
Trade Adjustment Assistance is an excellent idea and it has served us 
well, but it is time that it be refined to better fit the needs of an 
increasingly interdependent international political economy.
  To this end, I offer a very straightforward amendment today, and an 
action that I see as a first, but very important, step to more 
comprehensive Trade Adjustment Assistance reform. The immediate goal of 
the amendment is to obtain the information necessary to make informed 
decisions on how to proceed in future legislation. My amendment asks 
that the General Accounting Office study this issue, and, within nine 
months, offer Congress specific data and recommendations concerning the 
efficiency and effectiveness of federal inter-agency and federal and 
state coordination of unemployment and retraining activities associated 
with the following programs: the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, 
the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance program, the Job Training 
Partnership Act, the Workforce Investment Act, and the Unemployment 
Insurance Program. The report will examine the activities since the 
enactment of the NAFTA agreement on January 1, 1994, and will include 
analysis of many of the issues I mentioned previously: the 
compatibility of program requirements and application procedures 
related to the unemployment and retraining of dislocated workers in the 
United States, the capacity of these programs to assist primary and 
secondary workers negatively impacted by foreign trade and the transfer 
of production to other countries, and the effectiveness of the 
aforementioned programs relative to the re-employment of United States 
workers dislocated by foreign trade and the transfer of production to 
other countries. This is an unambiguous and uncomplicated amendment, 
and it will help us chart a course for the future.
  Trade Adjustment Assistance is a necessary part of our national trade 
policy toolbox, and I believe it has done an admirable job over the 
years. But we all know it will become even more important as our 
country becomes more integrated into the global economy. For this 
reason, it is time that it be made more effective, and that its goals 
be better defined. I believe this amendment will assist us in this 
effort, and I hope that my colleagues will support the passage of this 
bill when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to present legislative 
background and history on a provision contained in the Manager's 
Amendment to the African Growth and Opportunity Act adopted this 
evening by consent. Constituents in my state in the wool fabric 
industry have been concerned about any revision to tariff reduction and 
phase-out schedules that would unfairly alter their competitive posture 
and force layoffs of Connecticut employees.
  The final language in the provision states that, ``It is the sense of 
the Senate that U.S. trade policy should place a priority on the 
elimination or amelioration of tariff inversions that undermine the 
competitiveness of the U.S. consuming industries, while taking into 
account the conditions in the producing industry in the United States, 
especially those currently facing tariff phase-outs negotiated under 
prior trade agreements.'' I want to note that this provision as adopted 
was modified to reflect specific concerns I raised about it. While this 
provision merely expresses a ``sense of the Senate'' and is in no way 
law or binding, I do want to provide background on the intent of the 
provision.
  I note, first, that language in the provision as originally proposed 
directing the inclusion of the ``wool fabric'' industry sector in this 
provision was specifically deleted in the version that passed in the 
Manager's Amendment, underscoring the Senate's clear intent that this 
provision is not directed at this sector.
  Second, the provision specifically requires that full account be 
taken of ``conditions'' in the various ``producing industry in the 
United States,'' indicating that whatever further action Congress may 
want to consider in the future on this issue, or that the U.S. Trade 
Representative may raise in future negotiations, must assure fairness 
and equitable treatment to those currently producing in the United 
States. Furthermore, the language specifically states that special 
attention and equity is to be provided to ``those currently facing 
tariff phase-outs negotiated under prior trade agreements.'' Since my 
constituents in the wool fabrication sector specifically fall into 
exactly that posture, properly relying on phase-out schedules 
negotiated in prior trade agreements, this protection and assurance is 
directed at their concerns, which, in turn, is why their industry 
sector was dropped from application of this provision.
  I further appreciate the assurances provided me by the Managers of 
this bill that I will be provided full notice of any consideration of 
this issue in conference and that it will be resolved in a manner 
satisfactory to me in representation of my constituent's concerns.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the managers' amendment has been worked on 
by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Moynihan, and myself. We 
have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. This represents 
the results. There is no objection from the Democrat or Republican 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I simply confirm the chairman's 
statement. I thank all who have worked very hard on this extensive 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the managers' 
amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. I ask for a voice vote.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2505) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the ranking member of the committee for his 
cooperation and help.
  I think now we are about ready to proceed with the votes.
  A quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2487

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is entitled to 2 
minutes of his time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment provides for enforceable 
labor standards. This is about the terms of trade and wanting to make 
sure with the CBI countries that when it comes to the right to organize 
and bargain collectively, people are not imprisoned for asserting this 
right, and that basic human rights and basic labor rights are met. In 
that way, we will have a trade agreement with enforceable labor 
standards that says to wage earners in our country: You are not going 
to lose your job in the apparel industry to other countries because 
they are paying 35 cents an hour and violate basic labor rights. It 
also says to workers in CBI countries: It is a benefit to you; you do 
not have to depend on investment by only making 35 or 40 cents an hour 
and not able to have basic human rights and labor rights.
  This amendment calls for enforceable labor rights. It is the right 
thing to do. It is all about the right terms of trade, and I hope my 
colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the managers' amendment which has just 
been adopted at the behest of Senator Levin, myself, and others, 
requires that core labor standards are necessary matters that the 
President must consider in granting these trade privileges. Of course, 
the Generalized System of Preferences incorporates substantially the 
same measures. The President is authorized to consider countries' 
compliance with these standards. Indeed, the President has already 
endorsed the

[[Page S13763]]

core labor standards through the ILO Declaration adopted in 1998. There 
is no need to micromanage his handling of foreign affairs.
  In the interest of moving this measure along, with full agreement 
with the purposes of the Senator from Minnesota, I move to table the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been used or yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 2487. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 349 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2347

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes equally divided before 
a vote on the motion to table amendment No. 2347.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides for a private 
right of action to go into Federal court and stop dumped goods from 
coming into the United States in order to enforce U.S. trade laws and 
international trade laws, consistent with GATT.
  For example, today, if you take a case under 30201, the International 
Trade Commission takes up to a year to have it acted on, and then the 
administration can have a suspension order and eliminate it totally. 
Dumped goods are unfairly taking jobs from farmers, where dumped wheat 
comes into the United States. Textiles are dumped, steel is dumped, 
lamb is dumped; and the administration consistently decides these 
cases--as they did on steel with Russia--on a suspension agreement as 
to what is going to help the Russian economy for foreign policy and 
defense reasons, as opposed to seeing to it that United States trade 
laws are enforced that prohibit dumping--selling in the United States 
at a lower cost than illustratively selling in Russia.
  This would give an injured party a chance to go to court and get an 
injunction within a few weeks, to have countervailing duties imposed, 
which would be an effective way to see to it that our antidumping laws 
are enforced and we do not have the disintegration of industries such 
as steel or unfair practices for wheat farmers, lamb farmers, and the 
like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment. I do so because there is no evidence that the current 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws have failed to deliver relief 
to injured industries. Indeed, it is not clear to me that shifting the 
burden of the initial investigation to the courts, with any allowance 
at all for the normal process of discovery between private litigants, 
would help the petitioning industry in these cases.
  While both petitioners and respondents complain about their treatment 
before the administrative agencies, largely due to what they consider 
to be the arbitrary basis for their decisions, both sides to the 
litigation seem to agree that the cases themselves are completed as 
rapidly as possible. They also agree that the current system provides 
more certainty and predictability.
  Given that, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the 
implications of shifting these cases to the Federal courts. While the 
system is not perfect, the fact is that petitioners have been very 
successful in these cases. Moreover, the system is surprisingly quick 
and responsive, given the complexity of these cases. Anybody who has 
spent years before the Federal courts in a complex commercial matter 
can tell you that the current system of litigation of unfair trade 
cases administratively is quite rapid.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to table the 
amendment. No such change, as proposed by this amendment, should be 
adopted without thorough study on the part of the appropriate 
committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this rollcall vote and 
future rollcalls in this series be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2347. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2430

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
minutes equally divided for a vote on the motion to table the Landrieu 
amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will not ask my colleagues to vote. I 
will ask for the vote to be vitiated. However, I want to spend 1 minute 
on this amendment because there seems to be a misunderstanding about 
some of the facts. With all respect to the chairman and ranking member 
who do not support this amendment, perhaps we will have longer to 
debate this in the years to come.

[[Page S13764]]

  It is my understanding--and I am supporting this bill--that our idea 
is to help develop the continent of Africa in a mutually beneficial way 
that helps our Nation, also. However, in the current draft of the bill, 
there is an island that is included which is technically part of 
Africa. There are 1 million inhabitants and the per capita GDP is 
$10,300, far exceeding other nations, such as Sudan with a GDP of $875; 
Ethiopia, with a GDP of $520; Somalia, with a GDP of $600 per year per 
capita.
  I don't understand why we are including some islands that are already 
doing very well--in fact, better than some of our European nations. I 
bring this to the attention of the Senate. I will not ask for a vote. 
The ranking member has said there are administrative provisions in this 
trade agreement that make it clear our efforts are directed to the 
nations that need development and not to give preferential treatment to 
nations or areas that are already quite developed.
  That is my only point. I am not going to ask the Senate to vote on 
it. Perhaps we will have a time to discuss this in the next year or the 
next Congress.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. She 
is absolutely right. We should address this issue. We will. I thank her 
for bringing it before us and do not forget to come back.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we dispense with the 
vote on the motion to table the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is next in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has an inquiry. Is it the intention 
of the Senator from Delaware--is the motion to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. The Senator withdrew her amendment and I asked unanimous 
consent we dispense with the vote on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2430) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized under the 
previous order.
  Mr. HARKIN. For how long? Is it 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thought my amendment was pending, under the unanimous 
consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would need to call up the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2495

 (Purpose: To deny benefits under the legislation to any country that 
 does not comply with the Convention for the Elimination of the Worst 
                         Forms of Child Labor)

  Mr. HARKIN. I call up amendment 2495.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2495.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . LIMITATIONS ON BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no benefits under this Act shall be granted to any 
     country (or to any designated zone in that country) that does 
     not meet and effectively enforce the standards regarding 
     child labor established by the ILO Convention (No. 182) for 
     the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the President, 
     after consultation with the Trade Policy Review Committee, 
     shall submit a report to Congress on the enforcement of, and 
     compliance with, the standards described in subsection (a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under the understanding, I am going to 
take just a couple of minutes. Even though there was no time agreement, 
there was an understanding. I know people want to vote on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will yield, the Senate will be 
in order.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my 
colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Helms, and also by my friend from Minnesota, Mr. 
Wellstone. As you can see, this has broad philosophical support.
  I also at this moment inform my colleagues and thank Senator Helms 
for reporting out just this morning, from the Foreign Relations 
Committee, the Convention 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of 
Child Labor. That is record time. It was just adopted in June of this 
year. Then it had to go through some legal reviews and the President 
submitted to the Senate on August 5, 1999. So I want the chairman to 
know how much we appreciate the expeditious handling of that and the 
fact it is reported out. I am hopeful we can get a vote on it before we 
go out toward the end of this year.
  The reason I had the clerk read the entire amendment is because it is 
not very long and not very convoluted. All it says, basically, is no 
country will get the benefits of this bill unless they adopt and 
enforce the provisions of this Convention 182 that was just adopted in 
June.
  I might point out that there are 160 signators to this Convention. It 
is the first time in history the entire three representatives of the 
ILO Tripartite group, which are representatives from government, 
business, and labor agreed on the final form of a convention out of 
ILO. So it has broad support.
  This talk about the worst forms of child labor, child prostitution, 
child trafficking in drugs, child trafficking itself, hazardous work, 
any forms of bondage or slavery--all of those are listed under 182. All 
this amendment says is the benefits of this bill cannot go to any 
country that does not adopt and enforce the provisions of 182.
  I hope we can get a vote on the convention itself before we go out 
this fall. I believe it will say to all these countries in Africa: We 
are willing to trade with you, we are willing to help, but if you are 
going to have child prostitution, if you are going to traffic in kids, 
going to use kids in the drug trade, if you are going to chain them to 
looms, and you are not going to let them go to school, you are not 
going to permit them to have their own childhood--you are not going to 
get the benefits of this trade bill.
  I think it is the least we can do, to try to help take one more step 
forward in eliminating child labor throughout the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we can all thank the Senator from Iowa 
for bringing this matter forward. I think we are all close to being 
unanimously in support of the objectives.
  I note, of 160 signatories to the convention, only one country has 
ratified it; that is the Seychelles, an island complex in the Indian 
Ocean with a population of 75,000.
  Building up an international regime in which this convention will 
take hold and have consequences for the children is going to be the 
work of a generation. It will be well worth it, but we are only at the 
beginning. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is to be 
congratulated and thanked for reporting the bill out. But we have not 
ratified it. That is the situation we face. But let us go forward with 
this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2495.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, Mr. Kennedy would 
vote ``aye.''

[[Page S13765]]

  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
  The amendment (No. 2495) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                    Amendment No. 2359, As Modified

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the previously 
agreed to Grassley-Conrad amendment No. 2359 be modified. Further, the 
modifications have been agreed to by both sides. I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be adopted.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I so move.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2359), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the end, insert the following new title:

           TITLE __--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS

            Subtitle A--Amendments to the Trade Act of 1974

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment 
     Assistance for Farmers Act''.

     SEC. __02. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new chapter:

             ``CHAPTER 6--ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS

     ``SEC. 291. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Agricultural commodity producer.--The term 
     `agricultural commodity producer' means any person who is 
     engaged in the production and sale of an agricultural 
     commodity in the United States and who owns or shares the 
     ownership and risk of loss of the agricultural commodity.
       ``(2) Agricultural commodity.--The term `agricultural 
     commodity' means any agricultural commodity (including 
     livestock, fish, or harvested seafood) in its raw or natural 
     state.
       ``(3) Duly authorized representative.--The term `duly 
     authorized representative' means an association of 
     agricultural commodity producers.
       ``(4) National average price.--The term `national average 
     price' means the national average price paid to an 
     agricultural commodity producer for an agricultural commodity 
     in a marketing year as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       ``(5) Contributed importantly.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `contributed importantly' means 
     a cause which is important but not necessarily more important 
     than any other cause.
       ``(B) Determination of contributed importantly.--The 
     determination of whether imports of articles like or directly 
     competitive with an agricultural commodity with respect to 
     which the petition under this chapter was filed contributed 
     importantly to a decline in the price of the agricultural 
     commodity shall be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       ``(6) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     ``SEC. 292. PETITIONS; GROUP ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--A petition for a certification of 
     eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under this 
     chapter may be filed with the Secretary by a group of 
     agricultural commodity producers or by their duly authorized 
     representative. Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary 
     shall promptly publish notice in the Federal Register that 
     the Secretary has received the petition and initiated an 
     investigation.
       ``(b) Hearings.--If the petitioner, or any other person 
     found by the Secretary to have a substantial interest in the 
     proceedings, submits not later than 10 days after the date of 
     the Secretary's publication under subsection (a) a request 
     for a hearing, the Secretary shall provide for a public 
     hearing and afford such interested persons an opportunity to 
     be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard.
       ``(c) Group Eligibility Requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     certify a group of agricultural commodity producers as 
     eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under this 
     chapter if the Secretary determines--
       ``(1) that the national average price for the agricultural 
     commodity, or a class of goods within the agricultural 
     commodity, produced by the group for the most recent 
     marketing year for which the national average price is 
     available is less than 80 percent of the average of the 
     national average price for such agricultural commodity, or 
     such class of goods, for the 5 marketing years preceding the 
     most recent marketing year; and
       ``(2) that either--
       ``(A) increases in imports of articles like or directly 
     competitive with the agricultural commodity, or class of 
     goods within the agricultural commodity, produced by the 
     group contributed importantly to the decline in price 
     described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
     the agricultural commodity, or class of goods within the 
     agricultural commodity, produced by the group account for a 
     significant percentage of the domestic market for the 
     agricultural commodity (or class of goods) and have 
     contributed importantly to the decline in price described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Special Rule for Qualified Subsequent Years.--A group 
     of agricultural commodity producers certified as eligible 
     under section 293 shall be eligible to apply for assistance 
     under this chapter in any qualified year after the year the 
     group is first certified, if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) the national average price for the agricultural 
     commodity, or class of goods within the agricultural 
     commodity, produced by the group for the most recent 
     marketing year for which the national average price is 
     available is equal to or less than the price determined under 
     subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(2) the requirements of subsection (c)(2) (A) or (B) are 
     met.
       ``(e) Determination of Qualified Year and Commodity.--In 
     this chapter:
       ``(1) Qualified year.--The term `qualified year', with 
     respect to a group of agricultural commodity producers 
     certified as eligible under section 293, means each 
     consecutive year after the year in which the group is 
     certified that the Secretary makes the determination under 
     subsection (c) or (d), as the case may be.
       ``(2) Classes of goods within a commodity.--In any case in 
     which there are separate classes of goods within an 
     agricultural commodity, the Secretary shall treat each class 
     as a separate commodity in determining group eligibility, the 
     national average price, and level of imports under this 
     section and section 296.

     ``SEC. 293. DETERMINATIONS BY SECRETARY.

       ``(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date on 
     which a petition is filed under section 292, but in any event 
     not later than 60 days after that date, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether the petitioning group meets the 
     requirements of section 292(c) (or (d), as the case may be) 
     and shall, if so, issue a certification of eligibility to 
     apply for assistance under this chapter covering agricultural 
     commodity producers in any group that meet the requirements. 
     Each certification shall specify the date on which 
     eligibility under this chapter begins.
       ``(b) Notice.--Upon making a determination on a petition, 
     the Secretary shall promptly publish a summary of the 
     determination in the Federal Register together with the 
     Secretary's reasons for making the determination.
       ``(c) Termination of Certification.--Whenever the Secretary 
     determines, with respect to any certification of eligibility 
     under this chapter, that the decline in price for the 
     agricultural commodity covered by the certification is no 
     longer attributable to the conditions described in section 
     292, the Secretary shall terminate such certification and 
     promptly cause notice of such termination to be published in 
     the Federal Register together with the Secretary's reasons 
     for making such determination.

     ``SEC. 294. STUDY BY SECRETARY WHEN INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
                   COMMISSION BEGINS INVESTIGATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Whenever the International Trade 
     Commission (in this chapter referred to as the `Commission') 
     begins an investigation under section 202 with respect to an 
     agricultural commodity, the Commission shall immediately 
     notify the Secretary of the investigation. Upon receipt of 
     the notification, the Secretary shall immediately begin a 
     study of--
       ``(1) the number of agricultural commodity producers 
     producing a like or directly competitive agricultural 
     commodity who have been or are likely to be certified as 
     eligible for adjustment assistance under this chapter, and
       ``(2) the extent to which the adjustment of such producers 
     to the import competition may be facilitated through the use 
     of existing programs.
       ``(b) Report.--The report of the Secretary of the study 
     under subsection (a) shall be

[[Page S13766]]

     made to the President not later than 15 days after the day on 
     which the Commission makes its report under section 202(f). 
     Upon making his report to the President, the Secretary shall 
     also promptly make it public (with the exception of 
     information which the Secretary determines to be 
     confidential) and shall have a summary of it published in the 
     Federal Register.

     ``SEC. 295. BENEFIT INFORMATION TO AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY 
                   PRODUCERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide full 
     information to producers about the benefit allowances, 
     training, and other employment services available under this 
     title and about the petition and application procedures, and 
     the appropriate filing dates, for such allowances, training, 
     and services. The Secretary shall provide whatever assistance 
     is necessary to enable groups to prepare petitions or 
     applications for program benefits under this title.
       ``(b) Notice of Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall mail written notice 
     of the benefits available under this chapter to each 
     agricultural commodity producer that the Secretary has reason 
     to believe is covered by a certification made under this 
     chapter.
       ``(2) Other notice.--The Secretary shall publish notice of 
     the benefits available under this chapter to agricultural 
     commodity producers that are covered by each certification 
     made under this chapter in newspapers of general circulation 
     in the areas in which such producers reside.

     ``SEC. 296. QUALIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
                   COMMODITY PRODUCERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Payment of a trade adjustment allowance 
     shall be made to an adversely affected agricultural commodity 
     producer covered by a certification under this chapter who 
     files an application for such allowance within 90 days after 
     the date on which the Secretary makes a determination and 
     issues a certification of eligibility under section 293, if 
     the following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The producer submits to the Secretary sufficient 
     information to establish the amount of agricultural commodity 
     covered by the application filed under subsection (a), that 
     was produced by the producer in the most recent year.
       ``(2) The producer certifies that the producer has not 
     received cash benefits under any provision of this title 
     other than this chapter.
       ``(3) The producer's net farm income (as determined by the 
     Secretary) for the most recent year is less than the 
     producer's net farm income for the latest year in which no 
     adjustment assistance was received by the producer under this 
     chapter.
       ``(4) The producer certifies that the producer has met with 
     an Extension Service employee or agent to obtain, at no cost 
     to the producer, information and technical assistance that 
     will assist the producer in adjusting to import competition 
     with respect to the adversely affected agricultural 
     commodity, including--
       ``(A) information regarding the feasibility and 
     desirability of substituting 1 or more alternative 
     commodities for the adversely affected agricultural 
     commodity; and
       ``(B) technical assistance that will improve the 
     competitiveness of the production and marketing of the 
     adversely affected agricultural commodity by the producer, 
     including yield and marketing improvements.
       ``(b) Amount of Cash Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of section 
     298, an adversely affected agricultural commodity producer 
     described in subsection (a) shall be entitled to adjustment 
     assistance under this chapter in an amount equal to the 
     product of--
       ``(A) one-half of the difference between--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 80 percent of the average of the 
     national average price of the agricultural commodity covered 
     by the application described in subsection (a) for the 5 
     marketing years preceding the most recent marketing year, and
       ``(ii) the national average price of the agricultural 
     commodity for the most recent marketing year, and
       ``(B) the amount of the agricultural commodity produced by 
     the agricultural commodity producer in the most recent 
     marketing year.
       ``(2) Special rule for subsequent qualified years.--The 
     amount of cash benefits for a qualified year shall be 
     determined in the same manner as cash benefits are determined 
     under paragraph (1) except that the average national price of 
     the agricultural commodity shall be determined under 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) by using the 5-marketing-year period used 
     to determine the amount of cash benefits for the first 
     certification.
       ``(c) Maximum Amount of Cash Assistance.--The maximum 
     amount of cash benefits an agricultural commodity producer 
     may receive in any 12-month period shall not exceed $10,000.
       ``(d) Limitations on Other Assistance.--An agricultural 
     commodity producer entitled to receive a cash benefit under 
     this chapter--
       ``(1) shall not be eligible for any other cash benefit 
     under this title, and
       ``(2) shall be entitled to employment services and training 
     benefits under sections 235 and 236.

     ``SEC. 297. FRAUD AND RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Repayment.--If the Secretary, or a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, determines that any person has received any 
     payment under this chapter to which the person was not 
     entitled, such person shall be liable to repay such amount to 
     the Secretary, except that the Secretary may waive such 
     repayment if the Secretary determines, in accordance with 
     guidelines prescribed by the Secretary that--
       ``(A) the payment was made without fault on the part of 
     such person, and
       ``(B) requiring such repayment would be contrary to equity 
     and good conscience.
       ``(2) Recovery of overpayment.--Unless an overpayment is 
     otherwise recovered, or waived under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall recover the overpayment by deductions from 
     any sums payable to such person under this chapter.
       ``(b) False Statements.--If the Secretary, or a court of 
     competent jurisdiction, determines that a person--
       ``(1) knowingly has made, or caused another to make, a 
     false statement or representation of a material fact, or
       ``(2) knowingly has failed, or caused another to fail, to 
     disclose a material fact,

     and as a result of such false statement or representation, or 
     of such nondisclosure, such person has received any payment 
     under this chapter to which the person was not entitled, such 
     person shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by 
     law, be ineligible for any further payments under this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) Notice and Determination.--Except for overpayments 
     determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, no repayment 
     may be required, and no deduction may be made, under this 
     section until a determination under subsection (a)(1) by the 
     Secretary has been made, notice of the determination and an 
     opportunity for a fair hearing thereon has been given to the 
     person concerned, and the determination has become final.
       ``(d) Payment to Treasury.--Any amount recovered under this 
     section shall be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       ``(e) Penalties.--Whoever makes a false statement of a 
     material fact knowing it to be false, or knowingly fails to 
     disclose a material fact, for the purpose of obtaining or 
     increasing for himself or for any other person any payment 
     authorized to be furnished under this chapter shall be fined 
     not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
     or both.

     ``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     and there are appropriated to the Department of Agriculture 
     for fiscal years 2000 through 2001, such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter not to 
     exceed $100,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
       ``(b) Proportionate Reduction.--If in any year, the amount 
     appropriated under this chapter is insufficient to meet the 
     requirements for adjustment assistance payable under this 
     chapter, the amount of assistance payable under this chapter 
     shall be reduced proportionately.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for title 
     II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the 
     items relating to chapter 5, the following:

             ``Chapter 6--Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

``Sec. 291. Definitions.
``Sec. 292. Petitions; group eligibility.
``Sec. 293. Determinations by Secretary.
``Sec. 294. Study by Secretary when International Trade Commission 
              begins investigation.
``Sec. 295. Benefit information to agricultural commodity producers.
``Sec. 296. Qualifying requirements for agricultural commodity 
              producers.
``Sec. 297. Fraud and recovery of overpayments.
``Sec. 298. Authorization of appropriations.''.

 Subtitle B--Revenue Provisions Relating to Trade Adjustment Assistance

     SEC. __10. REFERENCE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     subtitle an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. __11. MODIFICATIONS TO ASSET DIVERSIFICATION TEST.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 856(c)(4) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) not more than 25 percent of the value of its total 
     assets is represented by securities (other than those 
     includible under subparagraph (A)),
       ``(ii) not more than 20 percent of the value of its total 
     assets is represented by securities of 1 or more taxable REIT 
     subsidiaries, and
       ``(iii) except with respect to a taxable REIT subsidiary 
     and securities includible under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(I) not more than 5 percent of the value of its total 
     assets is represented by securities of any one issuer,
       ``(II) the trust does not hold securities possessing more 
     than 10 percent of the total voting power of the outstanding 
     securities of any one issuer, and
       ``(III) the trust does not hold securities having a value 
     of more than 10 percent of the total value of the outstanding 
     securities of any one issuer.''.
       (b) Exception for Straight Debt Securities.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 856 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Straight debt safe harbor in applying paragraph 
     (4).--Securities of an issuer which are straight debt (as 
     defined in section 1361(c)(5) without regard to subparagraph

[[Page S13767]]

     (B)(iii) thereof) shall not be taken into account in applying 
     paragraph (4)(B)(ii)(III) if--
       ``(A) the issuer is an individual, or
       ``(B) the only securities of such issuer which are held by 
     the trust or a taxable REIT subsidiary of the trust are 
     straight debt (as so defined), or
       ``(C) the issuer is a partnership and the trust holds at 
     least a 20 percent profits interest in the partnership.''.

     SEC. __12. TREATMENT OF INCOME AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY 
                   TAXABLE REIT SUBSIDIARIES.

       (a) Income From Taxable REIT Subsidiaries Not Treated as 
     Impermissible Tenant Service Income.--Clause (i) of section 
     856(d)(7)(C) (relating to exceptions to impermissible tenant 
     service income) is amended by inserting ``or through a 
     taxable REIT subsidiary of such trust'' after ``income''.
       (b) Certain Income From Taxable REIT Subsidiaries Not 
     Excluded From Rents From Real Property.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 856 (relating to 
     rents from real property defined) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) Special rule for taxable reit subsidiaries.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, amounts paid to a real estate 
     investment trust by a taxable REIT subsidiary of such trust 
     shall not be excluded from rents from real property by reason 
     of paragraph (2)(B) if the requirements of either of the 
     following subparagraphs are met:
       ``(A) Limited rental exception.--The requirements of this 
     subparagraph are met with respect to any property if at least 
     90 percent of the leased space of the property is rented to 
     persons other than taxable REIT subsidiaries of such trust 
     and other than persons described in section 856(d)(2)(B). The 
     preceding sentence shall apply only to the extent that the 
     amounts paid to the trust as rents from real property (as 
     defined in paragraph (1) without regard to paragraph (2)(B)) 
     from such property are substantially comparable to such rents 
     made by the other tenants of the trust's property for 
     comparable space.
       ``(B) Exception for certain lodging facilities.--The 
     requirements of this subparagraph are met with respect to an 
     interest in real property which is a qualified lodging 
     facility leased by the trust to a taxable REIT subsidiary of 
     the trust if the property is operated on behalf of such 
     subsidiary by a person who is an eligible independent 
     contractor.
       ``(9) Eligible independent contractor.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (8)(B)--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible independent 
     contractor' means, with respect to any qualified lodging 
     facility, any independent contractor if, at the time such 
     contractor enters into a management agreement or other 
     similar service contract with the taxable REIT subsidiary to 
     operate the facility, such contractor (or any related person) 
     is actively engaged in the trade or business of operating 
     qualified lodging facilities for any person who is not a 
     related person with respect to the real estate investment 
     trust or the taxable REIT subsidiary.
       ``(B) Special rules.--Solely for purposes of this paragraph 
     and paragraph (8)(B), a person shall not fail to be treated 
     as an independent contractor with respect to any qualified 
     lodging facility by reason of any of the following:
       ``(i) The taxable REIT subsidiary bears the expenses for 
     the operation of the facility pursuant to the management 
     agreement or other similar service contract.
       ``(ii) The taxable REIT subsidiary receives the revenues 
     from the operation of such facility, net of expenses for such 
     operation and fees payable to the operator pursuant to such 
     agreement or contract.
       ``(iii) The real estate investment trust receives income 
     from such person with respect to another property that is 
     attributable to a lease of such other property to such person 
     that was in effect as of the later of--

       ``(I) January 1, 1999, or
       ``(II) the earliest date that any taxable REIT subsidiary 
     of such trust entered into a management agreement or other 
     similar service contract with such person with respect to 
     such qualified lodging facility.

       ``(C) Renewals, etc., of existing leases.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B)(iii)--
       ``(i) a lease shall be treated as in effect on January 1, 
     1999, without regard to its renewal after such date, so long 
     as such renewal is pursuant to the terms of such lease as in 
     effect on whichever of the dates under subparagraph (B)(iii) 
     is the latest, and
       ``(ii) a lease of a property entered into after whichever 
     of the dates under subparagraph (B)(iii) is the latest shall 
     be treated as in effect on such date if--

       ``(I) on such date, a lease of such property from the trust 
     was in effect, and
       ``(II) under the terms of the new lease, such trust 
     receives a substantially similar or lesser benefit in 
     comparison to the lease referred to in subclause (I).

       ``(D) Qualified lodging facility.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified lodging facility' 
     means any lodging facility unless wagering activities are 
     conducted at or in connection with such facility by any 
     person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers and 
     who is legally authorized to engage in such business at or in 
     connection with such facility.
       ``(ii) Lodging facility.--The term `lodging facility' means 
     a hotel, motel, or other establishment more than one-half of 
     the dwelling units in which are used on a transient basis.
       ``(iii) Customary amenities and facilities.--The term 
     `lodging facility' includes customary amenities and 
     facilities operated as part of, or associated with, the 
     lodging facility so long as such amenities and facilities are 
     customary for other properties of a comparable size and class 
     owned by other owners unrelated to such real estate 
     investment trust.
       ``(E) Operate includes manage.--References in this 
     paragraph to operating a property shall be treated as 
     including a reference to managing the property.
       ``(F) Related person.--Persons shall be treated as related 
     to each other if such persons are treated as a single 
     employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     856(d)(2) is amended by inserting ``except as provided in 
     paragraph (8),'' after ``(B)''.
       (3) Determining rents from real property.--
       (A)(i) Paragraph (1) of section 856(d) is amended by 
     striking ``adjusted bases'' each place it occurs and 
     inserting ``fair market values''.
       (ii) The amendment made by this subparagraph shall apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
       (B)(i) Clause (i) of section 856(d)(2)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``number'' and inserting ``value''.
       (ii) The amendment made by this subparagraph shall apply to 
     amounts received or accrued in taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2000, except for amounts paid pursuant to leases 
     in effect on July 12, 1999, or pursuant to a binding contract 
     in effect on such date and at all times thereafter.

     SEC. __13. TAXABLE REIT SUBSIDIARY.

       (a) In General.--Section 856 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Taxable REIT Subsidiary.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `taxable REIT subsidiary' 
     means, with respect to a real estate investment trust, a 
     corporation (other than a real estate investment trust) if--
       ``(A) such trust directly or indirectly owns stock in such 
     corporation, and
       ``(B) such trust and such corporation jointly elect that 
     such corporation shall be treated as a taxable REIT 
     subsidiary of such trust for purposes of this part.

     Such an election, once made, shall be irrevocable unless both 
     such trust and corporation consent to its revocation. Such 
     election, and any revocation thereof, may be made without the 
     consent of the Secretary.
       ``(2) 35 percent ownership in another taxable reit 
     subsidiary.--The term `taxable REIT subsidiary' includes, 
     with respect to any real estate investment trust, any 
     corporation (other than a real estate investment trust) with 
     respect to which a taxable REIT subsidiary of such trust owns 
     directly or indirectly--
       ``(A) securities possessing more than 35 percent of the 
     total voting power of the outstanding securities of such 
     corporation, or
       ``(B) securities having a value of more than 35 percent of 
     the total value of the outstanding securities of such 
     corporation.

     The preceding sentence shall not apply to a qualified REIT 
     subsidiary (as defined in subsection (i)(2)). The rule of 
     section 856(c)(7) shall apply for purposes of subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(3) Exceptions.--The term `taxable REIT subsidiary' shall 
     not include--
       ``(A) any corporation which directly or indirectly operates 
     or manages a lodging facility or a health care facility, and
       ``(B) any corporation which directly or indirectly provides 
     to any other person (under a franchise, license, or 
     otherwise) rights to any brand name under which any lodging 
     facility or health care facility is operated.

     Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to rights provided to an 
     eligible independent contractor to operate or manage a 
     lodging facility if such rights are held by such corporation 
     as a franchisee, licensee, or in a similar capacity and such 
     lodging facility is either owned by such corporation or is 
     leased to such corporation from the real estate investment 
     trust.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) Lodging facility.--The term `lodging facility' has 
     the meaning given to such term by paragraph (9)(D)(ii).
       ``(B) Health care facility.--The term `health care 
     facility' has the meaning given to such term by subsection 
     (e)(6)(D)(ii).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 856(i) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Such term shall not include a taxable REIT subsidiary.''.

     SEC. __14. LIMITATION ON EARNINGS STRIPPING.

       Paragraph (3) of section 163( j) (relating to limitation on 
     deduction for interest on certain indebtedness) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) any interest paid or accrued (directly or indirectly) 
     by a taxable REIT subsidiary (as defined in section 856(l)) 
     of a real estate investment trust to such trust.''.

[[Page S13768]]

     SEC. __15. 100 PERCENT TAX ON IMPROPERLY ALLOCATED AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 857 (relating to 
     method of taxation of real estate investment trusts and 
     holders of shares or certificates of beneficial interest) is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs 
     (8) and (9), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Income from redetermined rents, redetermined 
     deductions, and excess interest.--
       ``(A) Imposition of tax.--There is hereby imposed for each 
     taxable year of the real estate investment trust a tax equal 
     to 100 percent of redetermined rents, redetermined 
     deductions, and excess interest.
       ``(B) Redetermined rents.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `redetermined rents' means 
     rents from real property (as defined in subsection 856(d)) 
     the amount of which would (but for subparagraph (E)) be 
     reduced on distribution, apportionment, or allocation under 
     section 482 to clearly reflect income as a result of services 
     furnished or rendered by a taxable REIT subsidiary of the 
     real estate investment trust to a tenant of such trust.
       ``(ii) Exception for certain services.--Clause (i) shall 
     not apply to amounts received directly or indirectly by a 
     real estate investment trust for services described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) or (7)(C)(i) of section 856(d).
       ``(iii) Exception for de minimis amounts.--Clause (i) shall 
     not apply to amounts described in section 856(d)(7)(A) with 
     respect to a property to the extent such amounts do not 
     exceed the one percent threshold described in section 
     856(d)(7)(B) with respect to such property.

       ``(iv) Exception for comparably priced services.--Clause 
     (i) shall not apply to any service rendered by a taxable REIT 
     subsidiary of a real estate investment trust to a tenant of 
     such trust if--

       ``(I) such subsidiary renders a significant amount of 
     similar services to persons other than such trust and tenants 
     of such trust who are unrelated (within the meaning of 
     section 856(d)(8)(F)) to such subsidiary, trust, and tenants, 
     but
       ``(II) only to the extent the charge for such service so 
     rendered is substantially comparable to the charge for the 
     similar services rendered to persons referred to in subclause 
     (I).

       ``(v) Exception for certain separately charged services.--
     Clause (i) shall not apply to any service rendered by a 
     taxable REIT subsidiary of a real estate investment trust to 
     a tenant of such trust if--

       ``(I) the rents paid to the trust by tenants (leasing at 
     least 25 percent of the net leasable space in the trust's 
     property) who are not receiving such service from such 
     subsidiary are substantially comparable to the rents paid by 
     tenants leasing comparable space who are receiving such 
     service from such subsidiary, and
       ``(II) the charge for such service from such subsidiary is 
     separately stated.

       ``(vi) Exception for certain services based on subsidiary's 
     income from the services.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any 
     service rendered by a taxable REIT subsidiary of a real 
     estate investment trust to a tenant of such trust if the 
     gross income of such subsidiary from such service is not less 
     than 150 percent of such subsidiary's direct cost in 
     furnishing or rendering the service.
       ``(vii) Exceptions granted by secretary.--The Secretary may 
     waive the tax otherwise imposed by subparagraph (A) if the 
     trust establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
     rents charged to tenants were established on an arms' length 
     basis even though a taxable REIT subsidiary of the trust 
     provided services to such tenants.
       ``(C) Redetermined deductions.--The term `redetermined 
     deductions' means deductions (other than redetermined rents) 
     of a taxable REIT subsidiary of a real estate investment 
     trust if the amount of such deductions would (but for 
     subparagraph (E)) be decreased on distribution, 
     apportionment, or allocation under section 482 to clearly 
     reflect income as between such subsidiary and such trust.
       ``(D) Excess interest.--The term `excess interest' means 
     any deductions for interest payments by a taxable REIT 
     subsidiary of a real estate investment trust to such trust to 
     the extent that the interest payments are in excess of a rate 
     that is commercially reasonable.
       ``(E) Coordination with section 482.--The imposition of tax 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be in lieu of any distribution, 
     apportionment, or allocation under section 482.
       ``(F) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry 
     out the purposes of this paragraph. Until the Secretary 
     prescribes such regulations, real estate investment trusts 
     and their taxable REIT subsidiaries may base their 
     allocations on any reasonable method.''.
       (b) Amount Subject to Tax Not Required To Be Distributed.--
     Subparagraph (E) of section 857(b)(2) (relating to real 
     estate investment trust taxable income) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (5)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (5) and 
     (7)''.

     SEC. __16. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by sections __11 
     through __15 shall apply to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2000.
       (b) Transitional Rules Related to Section __11.--
       (1) Existing arrangements.--
       (A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph, the amendment made by section __11 shall not apply 
     to a real estate investment trust with respect to--
       (i) securities of a corporation held directly or indirectly 
     by such trust on July 12, 1999,
       (ii) securities of a corporation held by an entity on July 
     12, 1999, if such trust acquires control of such entity 
     pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on such date 
     and at all times thereafter before such acquisition,
       (iii) securities received by such trust (or a successor) in 
     exchange for, or with respect to, securities described in 
     clause (i) or (ii) in a transaction in which gain or loss is 
     not recognized, and
       (iv) securities acquired directly or indirectly by such 
     trust as part of a reorganization (as defined in section 
     368(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) with respect 
     to such trust if such securities are described in clause (i), 
     (ii), or (iii) with respect to any other real estate 
     investment trust.
       (B) New trade or business or substantial new assets.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply to securities of a 
     corporation as of the first day after July 12, 1999, on which 
     such corporation engages in a substantial new line of 
     business, or acquires any substantial asset, other than--
       (i) pursuant to a binding contract in effect on such date 
     and at all times thereafter before the acquisition of such 
     asset,
       (ii) in a transaction in which gain or loss is not 
     recognized by reason of section 1031 or 1033 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, or
       (iii) in a reorganization (as so defined) with another 
     corporation the securities of which are described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.
       (C) Limitation on transition rules.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     cease to apply to securities of a corporation held, acquired, 
     or received, directly or indirectly, by a real estate 
     investment trust as of the first day after July 12, 1999, on 
     which such trust acquires any additional securities of such 
     corporation other than--
       (i) pursuant to a binding contract in effect on July 12, 
     1999, and at all times thereafter, or
       (ii) in a reorganization (as so defined) with another 
     corporation the securities of which are described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.
       (2) Tax-free conversion.--If--
       (A) at the time of an election for a corporation to become 
     a taxable REIT subsidiary, the amendment made by section __11 
     does not apply to such corporation by reason of paragraph 
     (1), and
       (B) such election first takes effect before January 1, 
     2004,
     such election shall be treated as a reorganization qualifying 
     under section 368(a)(1)(A) of such Code.

     SEC. __17. HEALTH CARE REITS.

       (a) Special Foreclosure Rule for Health Care Properties.--
     Subsection (e) of section 856 (relating to special rules for 
     foreclosure property) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rule for qualified health care properties.--
     For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Acquisition at expiration of lease.--The term 
     `foreclosure property' shall include any qualified health 
     care property acquired by a real estate investment trust as 
     the result of the termination of a lease of such property 
     (other than a termination by reason of a default, or the 
     imminence of a default, on the lease).
       ``(B) Grace period.--In the case of a qualified health care 
     property which is foreclosure property solely by reason of 
     subparagraph (A), in lieu of applying paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)--
       ``(i) the qualified health care property shall cease to be 
     foreclosure property as of the close of the second taxable 
     year after the taxable year in which such trust acquired such 
     property, and
       ``(ii) if the real estate investment trust establishes to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary that an extension of the 
     grace period in clause (i) is necessary to the orderly 
     leasing or liquidation of the trust's interest in such 
     qualified health care property, the Secretary may grant one 
     or more extensions of the grace period for such qualified 
     health care property.
     Any such extension shall not extend the grace period beyond 
     the close of the 6th year after the taxable year in which 
     such trust acquired such qualified health care property.
       ``(C) Income from independent contractors.--For purposes of 
     applying paragraph (4)(C) with respect to qualified health 
     care property which is foreclosure property by reason of 
     subparagraph (A) or paragraph (1), income derived or received 
     by the trust from an independent contractor shall be 
     disregarded to the extent such income is attributable to--
       ``(i) any lease of property in effect on the date the real 
     estate investment trust acquired the qualified health care 
     property (without regard to its renewal after such date so 
     long as such renewal is pursuant to the terms of such lease 
     as in effect on such date), or
       ``(ii) any lease of property entered into after such date 
     if--

       ``(I) on such date, a lease of such property from the trust 
     was in effect, and
       ``(II) under the terms of the new lease, such trust 
     receives a substantially similar or lesser benefit in 
     comparison to the lease referred to in subclause (I).

[[Page S13769]]

       ``(D) Qualified health care property.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified health care 
     property' means any real property (including interests 
     therein), and any personal property incident to such real 
     property, which--

       ``(I) is a health care facility, or
       ``(II) is necessary or incidental to the use of a health 
     care facility.

       ``(ii) Health care facility.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the term `health care facility' means a hospital, nursing 
     facility, assisted living facility, congregate care facility, 
     qualified continuing care facility (as defined in section 
     7872(g)(4)), or other licensed facility which extends medical 
     or nursing or ancillary services to patients and which, 
     immediately before the termination, expiration, default, or 
     breach of the lease of or mortgage secured by such facility, 
     was operated by a provider of such services which was 
     eligible for participation in the medicare program under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect to such 
     facility.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. __18. CONFORMITY WITH REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY 
                   RULES.

       (a) Distribution Requirement.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 857(a)(1)(A) (relating to requirements applicable to 
     real estate investment trusts) are each amended by striking 
     ``95 percent (90 percent for taxable years beginning before 
     January 1, 1980)'' and inserting ``90 percent''.
       (b) Imposition of Tax.--Clause (i) of section 857(b)(5)(A) 
     (relating to imposition of tax in case of failure to meet 
     certain requirements) is amended by striking ``95 percent (90 
     percent in the case of taxable years beginning before January 
     1, 1980)'' and inserting ``90 percent''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. __19. CLARIFICATION OF EXCEPTION FOR INDEPENDENT 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 856(d) (relating 
     to independent contractor defined) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following flush sentence:

     ``In the event that any class of stock of either the real 
     estate investment trust or such person is regularly traded on 
     an established securities market, only persons who own, 
     directly or indirectly, more than 5 percent of such class of 
     stock shall be taken into account as owning any of the stock 
     of such class for purposes of applying the 35 percent 
     limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) (but all of the 
     outstanding stock of such class shall be considered 
     outstanding in order to compute the denominator for purpose 
     of determining the applicable percentage of ownership).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. __20. MODIFICATION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS RULES.

       (a) Rules for Determining Whether Regulated Investment 
     Company Has Earnings and Profits From Non-RIC Year.--
     Subsection (c) of section 852 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Distributions to meet requirements of subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).--Any distribution which is made in order to comply 
     with the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(B)--
       ``(A) shall be treated for purposes of this subsection and 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) as made from the earliest earnings and 
     profits accumulated in any taxable year to which the 
     provisions of this part did not apply rather than the most 
     recently accumulated earnings and profits, and
       ``(B) to the extent treated under subparagraph (A) as made 
     from accumulated earnings and profits, shall not be treated 
     as a distribution for purposes of subsection (b)(2)(D) and 
     section 855.''.
       (b) Clarification of Application of REIT Spillover Dividend 
     Rules to Distributions To Meet Qualification Requirement.--
     Subparagraph (B) of section 857(d)(3) is amended by inserting 
     before the period ``and section 858''.
       (c) Application of Deficiency Dividend Procedures.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 852(e) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``If the determination under 
     subparagraph (A) is solely as a result of the failure to meet 
     the requirements of subsection (a)(2), the preceding sentence 
     shall also apply for purposes of applying subsection (a)(2) 
     to the non-RIC year.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.

     SEC. __21. MODIFICATION OF ESTIMATED TAX RULES FOR CLOSELY 
                   HELD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 6655 (relating 
     to estimated tax by corporations) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Treatment of certain reit dividends.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any dividend received from a closely 
     held real estate investment trust by any person which owns 
     (after application of subsections (d)(5) and (l)(3)(B) of 
     section 856) 10 percent or more (by vote or value) of the 
     stock or beneficial interests in the trust shall be taken 
     into account in computing annualized income installments 
     under paragraph (2) in a manner similar to the manner under 
     which partnership income inclusions are taken into account.
       ``(B) Closely held reit.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the term `closely held real estate investment trust' means a 
     real estate investment trust with respect to which 5 or fewer 
     persons own (after application of subsections (d)(5) and 
     (l)(3)(B) of section 856) 50 percent or more (by vote or 
     value) of the stock or beneficial interests in the trust.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to estimated tax payments due on or after 
     November 15, 1999.

     SEC. __22. CONTROLLED ENTITIES INELIGIBLE FOR REIT STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 856 (relating to 
     definition of real estate investment trust) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6), by 
     redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and by 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) which is not a controlled entity (as defined in 
     subsection (l)); and''.
       (b) Controlled Entity.--Section 856 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Controlled Entity.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(7), an 
     entity is a controlled entity if, at any time during the 
     taxable year, one person (other than a qualified entity)--
       ``(A) in the case of a corporation, owns stock--
       ``(i) possessing at least 50 percent of the total voting 
     power of the stock of such corporation, or
       ``(ii) having a value equal to at least 50 percent of the 
     total value of the stock of such corporation, or
       ``(B) in the case of a trust, owns beneficial interests in 
     the trust which would meet the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A) if such interests were stock.
       ``(2) Qualified entity.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `qualified entity' means--
       ``(A) any real estate investment trust, and
       ``(B) any partnership in which one real estate investment 
     trust owns at least 50 percent of the capital and profits 
     interests in the partnership.
       ``(3) Attribution rules.--For purposes of this paragraphs 
     (1) and (2)--
       ``(A) In general.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (d)(5) and (h)(3) shall apply; except that 
     section 318(a)(3)(C) shall not be applied under such rules to 
     treat stock owned by a qualified entity as being owned by a 
     person which is not a qualified entity.
       ``(B) Stapled entities.--A group of entities which are 
     stapled entities (as defined in section 269B(c)(2)) shall be 
     treated as one person.
       ``(4) Exception for certain new reits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `controlled entity' shall not 
     include an incubator REIT.
       ``(B) Incubator reit.--A corporation shall be treated as an 
     incubator REIT for any taxable year during the eligibility 
     period if it meets all the following requirements for such 
     year:
       ``(i) The corporation elects to be treated as an incubator 
     REIT.
       ``(ii) The corporation has only voting common stock 
     outstanding.
       ``(iii) Not more than 50 percent of the corporation's real 
     estate assets consist of mortgages.
       ``(iv) From not later than the beginning of the last half 
     of the second taxable year, at least 10 percent of the 
     corporation's capital is provided by lenders or equity 
     investors who are unrelated to the corporation's largest 
     shareholder.
       ``(v) The corporation annually increases the value of its 
     real estate assets by at least 10 percent.
       ``(vi) The directors of the corporation adopt a resolution 
     setting forth an intent to engage in a going public 
     transaction.

     No election may be made with respect to any REIT if an 
     election under this subsection was in effect for any 
     predecessor of such REIT. The requirement of clause (ii) 
     shall not fail to be met merely because a going public 
     transaction is accomplished through a transaction described 
     in section 368(a)(1) with another corporation which had 
     another class of stock outstanding prior to the transaction.
       ``(C) Eligibility period.--
       ``(i) In general.--The eligibility period (for which an 
     incubator REIT election can be made) begins with the REIT's 
     second taxable year and ends at the close of the REIT's third 
     taxable year, except that the REIT may, subject to clauses 
     (ii), (iii), and (iv), elect to extend such period for an 
     additional 2 taxable years.
       ``(ii) Going public transaction.--A REIT may not elect to 
     extend the eligibility period under clause (i) unless it 
     enters into an agreement with the Secretary that if it does 
     not engage in a going public transaction by the end of the 
     extended eligibility period, it shall pay Federal income 
     taxes for the 2 years of the extended eligibility period as 
     if it had not made an incubator REIT election and had ceased 
     to qualify as a REIT for those 2 taxable years.
       ``(iii) Returns, interest, and notice.--

       ``(I) Returns.--In the event the corporation ceases to be 
     treated as a REIT by operation of clause (ii), the 
     corporation shall file any appropriate amended returns 
     reflecting the change in status within 3 months of the close 
     of the extended eligibility period.
       ``(II) Interest.--Interest shall be payable on any tax 
     imposed by reason of clause (ii) for any taxable year but, 
     unless there was a finding under subparagraph (D), no 
     substantial underpayment penalties shall be imposed.

[[Page S13770]]

       ``(III) Notice.--The corporation shall, at the same time it 
     files its returns under subclause (I), notify its 
     shareholders and any other persons whose tax position is, or 
     may reasonably be expected to be, affected by the change in 
     status so they also may file any appropriate amended returns 
     to conform their tax treatment consistent with the 
     corporation's loss of REIT status.
       ``(IV) Regulations.--The Secretary shall provide 
     appropriate regulations setting forth transferee liability 
     and other provisions to ensure collection of tax and the 
     proper administration of this provision.

       ``(iv) Clauses (ii) and (iii) shall not apply if the 
     corporation allows its incubator REIT status to lapse at the 
     end of the initial 2-year eligibility period without engaging 
     in a going public transaction if the corporation is not a 
     controlled entity as of the beginning of its fourth taxable 
     year. In such a case, the corporation's directors may still 
     be liable for the penalties described in subparagraph (D) 
     during the eligibility period.
       ``(D) Special penalties.--If the Secretary determines that 
     an incubator REIT election was filed for a principal purpose 
     other than as part of a reasonable plan to undertake a going 
     public transaction, an excise tax of $20,000 shall be imposed 
     on each of the corporation's directors for each taxable year 
     for which an election was in effect.
       ``(E) Going public transaction.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a going public transaction means--
       ``(i) a public offering of shares of the stock of the 
     incubator REIT;
       ``(ii) a transaction, or series of transactions, that 
     results in the stock of the incubator REIT being regularly 
     traded on an established securities market and that results 
     in at least 50 percent of such stock being held by 
     shareholders who are unrelated to persons who held such stock 
     before it began to be so regularly traded; or
       ``(iii) any transaction resulting in ownership of the REIT 
     by 200 or more persons (excluding the largest single 
     shareholder) who in the aggregate own at least 50 percent of 
     the stock of the REIT.

     For the purposes of this subparagraph, the rules of paragraph 
     (3) shall apply in determining the ownership of stock.
       ``(F) Definitions.--The term `established securities 
     market' shall have the meaning set forth in the regulations 
     under section 897.''
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 856(h) 
     is amended by striking ``and (6)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``, (6), and (7)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years ending after July 14, 1999.
       (2) Exception for existing controlled entities.--The 
     amendments made by this section shall not apply to any entity 
     which is a controlled entity (as defined in section 856(l) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) 
     as of July 14, 1999, which is a real estate investment trust 
     for the taxable year which includes such date, and which has 
     significant business assets or activities as of such date. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, an entity shall be 
     treated as such a controlled entity on July 14, 1999, if it 
     becomes such an entity after such date in a transaction--
       (A) made pursuant to a written agreement which was binding 
     on such date and at all times thereafter, or
       (B) described on or before such date in a filing with the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission required solely by reason 
     of the transaction.

     SEC. __23. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATED TAX SAFE 
                   HARBOR.

       (a) In General.--The table contained in clause (i) of 
     section 6654(d)(1)(C) (relating to limitation on use of 
     preceding year's tax) is amended by striking all matter 
     beginning with the item relating to 1999 or 2000 and 
     inserting the following new items:

  ``1999.....................................................106.5 ....

  2000.........................................................106 ....

  2001.........................................................112 ....

  2002 or thereafter.........................................110''.....

         (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any installment payment for 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.

  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                    Amendment No. 2360, As Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2360.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been reported earlier. It is 
now pending.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment and send 
the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. AGRICULTURE TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES AND 
                   CONSULTATIONS WITH CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) United States agriculture contributes positively to the 
     United States balance of trade and United States agricultural 
     exports support in excess of 1,000,000 United States jobs;
       (2) United States agriculture competes successfully 
     worldwide despite the fact that United States producers are 
     at a competitive disadvantage because of the trade distorting 
     support and subsidy practices of other countries and despite 
     the fact that significant tariff and nontariff barriers exist 
     to United States exports; and
       (3) a successful conclusion of the next round of World 
     Trade Organization negotiations is critically important to 
     the United States agricultural sector.
       (b) Objectives.--The agricultural trade negotiating 
     objectives of the United States with respect to the World 
     Trade Organization negotiations include--
       (1) immediately eliminating all export subsidies worldwide 
     while maintaining bona fide food aid and preserving United 
     States market development and export credit programs that 
     allow the United States to compete with other foreign export 
     promotion efforts;
       (2) leveling the playing field for United States producers 
     of agricultural products by eliminating blue box subsidies 
     and disciplining domestic supports in a way that forces 
     producers to face world prices on all production in excess of 
     domestic food security needs while allowing the preservation 
     of non-trade distorting programs to support family farms and 
     rural communities;
       (3) disciplining state trading enterprises by insisting on 
     transparency and banning discriminatory pricing practices 
     that amount to de facto export subsidies so that the 
     enterprises do not (except in cases of bona fide food aid) 
     sell in foreign markets at prices below domestic market 
     prices or prices below the full costs of acquiring and 
     delivering agricultural products to the foreign markets;
       (4) insisting that the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Accord 
     agreed to in the Uruguay Round applies to new technologies, 
     including biotechnology, and clarifying that labeling 
     requirements to allow consumers to make choices regarding 
     biotechnology products or other regulatory requirements 
     cannot be used as disguised barriers to trade;
       (5) increasing opportunities for United States exports of 
     agricultural products by first reducing tariff and nontariff 
     barriers to trade to the same or lower levels than exist in 
     the United States and then eliminating barriers, such as--
       (A) restrictive or trade distorting practices that 
     adversely impact perishable or cyclical products;
       (B) restrictive rules in the administration of tariff-rate 
     quotas; and
       (C) unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions or 
     other unjustified technical barriers to agricultural trade;
       (6) encouraging government policies that avoid price-
     depressing surpluses; and
       (7) strengthening dispute settlement procedures so that 
     countries cannot maintain unjustified restrictions on United 
     States exports in contravention of their commitments.
       (c) Consultation With Congressional Committees.--
       (1) Consultation before offer made.--Before the United 
     States Trade Representative negotiates a trade agreement that 
     would reduce tariffs on agricultural products or require a 
     change in United States agricultural law, the United States 
     Trade Representative shall consult with the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Consultation before agreement initialed.--Not less than 
     48 hours before initialing an agreement relating to 
     agricultural trade negotiated under the auspices of the World 
     Trade Organization, the United States Trade Representative 
     shall consult closely with the committees referred to in 
     paragraph (1) regarding--
       (A) the details of the agreement;
       (B) the potential impact of the agreement on United States 
     agricultural producers; and
       (C) any changes in United States law necessary to implement 
     the agreement.
       (3) No secret side deals.--Any agreement or other 
     understanding (whether verbal or in writing) that relates to 
     agricultural trade that is not disclosed to the Congress 
     before legislation implementing a trade agreement is 
     introduced in either house of Congress shall not be 
     considered to be part of the agreement approved by Congress 
     and shall have no force and effect under United States law or 
     in any dispute settlement body.
       (d) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) reaching a successful agreement on agriculture should 
     be the top priority of United States negotiators; and
       (2) if the primary competitors of the United States do not 
     reduce their trade distorting domestic supports and export 
     subsidies in accordance with the negotiating objectives 
     expressed in this section, the United States should take 
     steps to increase the leverage of United States negotiators 
     and level the playing field for United States producers in 
     order to improve United States farm income and to encourage 
     United States competitors to eliminate export subsidies and 
     domestic supports that are harmful to United States farmers 
     and ranchers.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for point of clarification, this is a 
matter

[[Page S13771]]

that has now been negotiated so that we could reach agreement on the 
negotiating objectives for our trade representatives at the WTO Round.
  I thank all the Members who have participated in this, certainly my 
cosponsor, Senator Grassley of Iowa, and a special thanks to the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for 
their assistance in working this out.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment, as 
modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2360), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                    Amendment No. 2427, As Modified

   (Purpose: To provide expanded trade benefits to countries in sub-
                            Saharan Africa)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2427 and ask 
unanimous consent that it be modified with the language I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  Would the Senator tell me what the modification is?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator, we have worked this out with you 
and your staff. What it does is add a certain number of items, goods, 
to the Lome Treaty product list of items that could be covered under 
this agreement. Actually, it makes it consistent with the legislation 
we have before us.
  I believe we worked this out in advance with the Senator.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Wisconsin? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2427.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike sections 111 through 114 and insert the following:

     SEC. 111. ENCOURAGING MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TRADE AND 
                   INVESTMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A mutually beneficial United States Sub-Saharan Africa 
     trade policy will grant new access to the United States 
     market for a broad range of goods produced in Africa, by 
     Africans, and include safeguards to ensure that the 
     corporations manufacturing these goods (or the product or 
     manufacture of the oil or mineral extraction industry) 
     respect the rights of their employees and the local 
     environment. Such trade opportunities will promote equitable 
     economic development and thus increase demand in African 
     countries for United States goods and service exports.
       (2) Recognizing that the global system of textile and 
     apparel quotas under the MultiFiber Arrangement will be 
     phased out under the Uruguay Round Agreements over the next 5 
     years with the total termination of the quota system in 2005, 
     the grant of additional access to the United States market in 
     these sectors is a short-lived benefit.
       (b) Treatment of Quotas.--
       (1) Kenya and mauritius.--Pursuant to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing, the United States shall eliminate the 
     existing quotas on textile and apparel imports to the United 
     States from Kenya and Mauritius, respectively, not later than 
     30 days after each country demonstrates the following:
       (A) The country is not ineligible for benefits under 
     section 502(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2462(b)(2)).
       (B) The country does not engage in significant violations 
     of internationally recognized human rights and the Secretary 
     of State agrees with this determination.
       (C)(i) The country is providing for effective enforcement 
     of internationally recognized worker rights throughout the 
     country (including in export processing zones) as determined 
     under paragraph (5), including the core labor standards 
     enumerated in the appropriate treaties of the International 
     Labor Organization, and including--
       (I) the right of association;
       (II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
       (III) a prohibition on the use of any form of coerced or 
     compulsory labor;
       (IV) the international minimum age for the employment of 
     children (age 15); and
       (V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
     wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
       (ii) The government of the country ensures that the 
     Secretary of Labor, the head of the national labor agency of 
     the government of that country, and the head of the 
     International Confederation of Free Trade Unions-Africa 
     Region Office (ICFTU-AFRO) each has access to all appropriate 
     records and other information of all business enterprises in 
     the country.
       (D) The country is taking adequate measures to prevent 
     illegal transshipment of goods that is carried out by 
     rerouting, false declaration concerning country of origin or 
     place of origin, falsification of official documents, evasion 
     of United States rules of origin for textile and apparel 
     goods, or any other means, in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsection (d).
       (E) The country is taking adequate measures to prevent 
     being used as a transit point for the shipment of goods in 
     violation of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing or any 
     other applicable textile agreement.
       (F) The cost or value of the textile or apparel product 
     produced in the country, or by companies in any 2 or more 
     sub-Saharan African countries, plus the direct costs of 
     processing operations performed in the country or such 
     countries, is not less than 60 percent of the appraised value 
     of the product at the time it is entered into the customs 
     territory of the United States.
       (G) Not less than 90 percent of employees in business 
     enterprises producing the textile and apparel goods are 
     citizens of that country, or any 2 or more sub-Saharan 
     African countries.
       (H) The country has established, or is making continual 
     progress toward establishing--
       (i) a market-based economy, where private property rights 
     are protected and the principles of an open, rules-based 
     trading system are observed;
       (ii) a democratic society, where the rule of law, political 
     freedom, participatory democracy, and the right to due 
     process and a fair trial are observed;
       (iii) an open trading system through the elimination of 
     barriers to United States trade and investment and the 
     resolution of bilateral trade and investment disputes; and
       (iv) economic policies to reduce poverty, increase the 
     availability of health care and educational opportunities, 
     expand physical infrastructure, and promote the establishment 
     of private enterprise.
       (2) Other sub-saharan countries.--The President shall 
     continue the existing no quota policy for each other country 
     in sub-Saharan Africa if the country is in compliance with 
     the requirements applicable to Kenya and Mauritius under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (1).
       (3) Technical assistance.--The Customs Service shall 
     provide the necessary technical assistance to sub-Saharan 
     African countries in the development and implementation of 
     adequate measures against the illegal transshipment of goods.
       (4) Offsetting reduction of chinese quota.--When the quota 
     for textile and apparel products imported from Kenya or 
     Mauritius is eliminated, the quota for textile and apparel 
     products from the People's Republic of China for each 
     calendar year in each product category shall be reduced by 
     the amount equal to the volume of all textile and apparel 
     products in that product category imported from all sub-
     Saharan African countries into the United States in the 
     preceding calendar year, plus 5 percent of that amount.
       (5) Determination of compliance with internationally 
     recognized worker rights.--
       (A) Determination.--
       (i) In general.--For purposes of carrying out paragraph 
     (1)(C), the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the 
     individuals described in clause (ii) and pursuant to the 
     procedures described in clause (iii), shall determine whether 
     or not each sub-Saharan African country is providing for 
     effective enforcement of internationally recognized worker 
     rights throughout the country (including in export processing 
     zones).
       (ii) Individuals described.--The individuals described in 
     this clause are the head of the national labor agency of the 
     government of the sub-Saharan African country in question and 
     the head of the International Confederation of Free Trade 
     Unions-Africa Region Office (ICFTU-AFRO).
       (iii) Public comment.--Not later than 90 days before the 
     Secretary of Labor makes a determination that a country is in 
     compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1)(C), the 
     Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register and an 
     opportunity for public comment. The Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the comments received in making a determination 
     under such paragraph (1)(C).
       (B) Continuing compliance.--In the case of a country for 
     which the Secretary of Labor has made an initial 
     determination under subparagraph (A) that the country is in 
     compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1)(C), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the individuals described in 
     subparagraph (A), shall, not less than once every 3 years

[[Page S13772]]

     thereafter, conduct a review and make a determination with 
     respect to that country to ensure continuing compliance with 
     the requirements of paragraph (1)(C). The Secretary shall 
     submit the determination to Congress.
       (C) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Labor shall prepare and submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (i) a description of each determination made under this 
     paragraph during the preceding year;
       (ii) a description of the position taken by each of the 
     individuals described in subparagraph (A)(ii) with respect to 
     each such determination; and
       (iii) a report on the public comments received pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(iii).
       (6) Report.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
     President shall publish in the Federal Register and submit to 
     Congress a report on the growth in textiles and apparel 
     imported into the United States from countries in sub-Saharan 
     Africa in order to inform United States consumers, workers, 
     and textile manufacturers about the effects of the no quota 
     policy.
       (c) Treatment of Tariffs.--The President shall provide an 
     additional benefit of a 50 percent tariff reduction for any 
     textile and apparel product of a sub-Saharan African country 
     that meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (H) 
     of subsection (b)(1) and subsection (d) and that is imported 
     directly into the United States from such sub-Saharan African 
     country if the business enterprise, or a subcontractor of the 
     enterprise, producing the product is in compliance with the 
     following:
       (1) Citizens of 1 or more sub-Saharan African countries own 
     not less than 51 percent of the business enterprise.
       (2) If the business enterprise involves a joint-venture 
     arrangement with, or related to as a subsidiary, trust, or 
     subcontractor, a business enterprise organized under the laws 
     of the United States, the European Union, Japan, or any 
     other developed country (or group of developed countries), 
     or operating in such countries, the business enterprise 
     complies with the environmental standards that would apply 
     to a similar operation in the United States, the European 
     Union, Japan, or any other developed country (or group of 
     developed countries), as the case may be.
       (d) Customs Procedures and Enforcement.--
       (1) Obligations of importers and parties on whose behalf 
     apparel and textiles are imported.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, all imports to the United States of textile and apparel 
     goods pursuant to this Act shall be accompanied by--
       (i)(I) the name and address of the manufacturer or producer 
     of the goods, and any other information with respect to the 
     manufacturer or producer that the Customs Service may 
     require; and
       (II) if there is more than one manufacturer or producer, or 
     if there is a contractor or subcontractor of the manufacturer 
     or producer with respect to the manufacture or production of 
     the goods, the information required under subclause (I) with 
     respect to each such manufacturer, producer, contractor, or 
     subcontractor, including a description of the process 
     performed by each such entity;
       (ii) a certification by the importer of record that the 
     importer has exercised reasonable care to ascertain the true 
     country of origin of the textile and apparel goods and the 
     accuracy of all other information provided on the 
     documentation accompanying the imported goods, as well as a 
     certification of the specific action taken by the importer to 
     ensure reasonable care for purposes of this paragraph; and
       (iii) a certification by the importer that the goods being 
     entered do not violate applicable trademark, copyright, and 
     patent laws.
       (B) Liability.--The importer of record and the final retail 
     seller of the merchandise shall be jointly liable for any 
     material false statement, act, or omission made with the 
     intention or effect of--
       (i) circumventing any quota that applies to the 
     merchandise; or
       (ii) avoiding any duty that would otherwise be applicable 
     to the merchandise.
       (2) Obligations of countries to take action against 
     transshipment and circumvention.--The President shall ensure 
     that any country in sub-Saharan Africa that intends to import 
     textile and apparel goods into the United States--
       (A) has in place adequate measures to guard against 
     unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel goods and the 
     use of counterfeit documents; and
       (B) will cooperate fully with the United States to address 
     and take action necessary to prevent circumvention of any 
     provision of this section or of any agreement regulating 
     trade in apparel and textiles between that country and the 
     United States.
       (3) Standards of proof.--
       (A) For importers and retailers.--
       (i) In general.--The United States Customs Service (in this 
     Act referred to as the ``Customs Service'') shall seek 
     imposition of a penalty against an importer or retailer for a 
     violation of any provision of this section if the Customs 
     Service determines, after appropriate investigation, that 
     there is a substantial likelihood that the violation 
     occurred.
       (ii) Use of best available information.--If an importer or 
     retailer fails to cooperate with the Customs Service in an 
     investigation to determine if there has been a violation of 
     any provision of this section, the Customs Service shall base 
     its determination on the best available information.
       (B) For countries.--
       (i) In general.--The President may determine that a country 
     is not taking adequate measures to prevent illegal 
     transshipment of goods or to prevent being used as a transit 
     point for the shipment of goods in violation of this section 
     if the Customs Service determines, after consultations with 
     the country concerned, that there is a substantial likelihood 
     that a violation of this section occurred.
       (ii) Use of best available information.--

       (I) In general.--If a country fails to cooperate with the 
     Customs Service in an investigation to determine if an 
     illegal transshipment has occurred, the Customs Service shall 
     base its determination on the best available information.
       (II) Examples.--Actions indicating failure of a country to 
     cooperate under subclause (I) include--

       (aa) denying or unreasonably delaying entry of officials of 
     the Customs Service to investigate violations of, or promote 
     compliance with, this section or any textile agreement;
       (bb) providing appropriate United States officials with 
     inaccurate or incomplete information, including information 
     required under the provisions of this section; and
       (cc) denying appropriate United States officials access to 
     information or documentation relating to production capacity 
     of, and outward processing done by, manufacturers, producers, 
     contractors, or subcontractors within the country.
       (4) Penalties.--
       (A) For importers and retailers.--The penalty for a 
     violation of any provision of this section by an importer or 
     retailer of textile and apparel goods--
       (i) for a first offense (except as provided in clause 
     (iii)), shall be a civil penalty in an amount equal to 200 
     percent of the declared value of the merchandise, plus 
     forfeiture of the merchandise;
       (ii) for a second offense (except as provided in clause 
     (iii)), shall be a civil penalty in an amount equal to 400 
     percent of the declared value of the merchandise, plus 
     forfeiture of the merchandise, and, shall be punishable by a 
     fine of not more than $100,000, imprisonment for not more 
     than 1 year, or both; and
       (iii) for a third or subsequent offense, or for a first or 
     second offense if the violation of the provision of this 
     section is committed knowingly and willingly, shall be 
     punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000,000, 
     imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, and, in 
     addition, shall result in forfeiture of the merchandise.
       (B) For countries.--If a country fails to undertake the 
     measures or fails to cooperate as required by this section, 
     the President shall impose a quota on textile and apparel 
     goods imported from the country, based on the volume of such 
     goods imported during the first 12 of the preceding 24 
     months, or shall impose a duty on the apparel or textile 
     goods of the country, at a level designed to secure future 
     cooperation.
       (5) Applicability of united states laws and procedures.--
     All provisions of the laws, regulations, and procedures of 
     the United States relating to the denial of entry of articles 
     or penalties against individuals or entities for engaging in 
     illegal transshipment, fraud, or other violations of the 
     customs laws, shall apply to imports of textiles and apparel 
     from sub-Saharan African countries, in addition to the 
     specific provisions of this section.
       (6) Monitoring and reports to congress.--Not later than 
     March 31 of each year, the Customs Service shall monitor and 
     the Commissioner of Customs shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the measures taken by each country in sub-Saharan Africa 
     that imports textiles or apparel goods into the United 
     States--
       (A) to prevent transshipment; and
       (B) to prevent circumvention of this section or of any 
     agreement regulating trade in textiles and apparel between 
     that country and the United States.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing'' means the Agreement on Textiles and 
     Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

     SEC. 112. GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

       (a) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Certain Articles.--
     Section 503(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Eligible countries in sub-saharan africa.--
       ``(i) In general.--

       ``(I) Duty-free treatment.--Subject to clause (ii), the 
     President may provide duty-free treatment for any article 
     described in subclause (II) that is imported directly into 
     the United States from a sub-Saharan African country.
       ``(II) Article described.--

       ``(aa) In general.--An article described in this subclause 
     is any article described in section 503(b)(1) (B) through (G) 
     (except for textile luggage) or an article set forth in the

[[Page S13773]]

     most current Lome Treaty product list, that is the growth, 
     product, or manufacture of a sub-Saharan African country that 
     is a beneficiary developing country and that is in compliance 
     with the requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of section 
     111 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, with respect 
     to such article, if, after receiving the advice of the 
     International Trade Commission in accordance with subsection 
     (e), the President determines that such article is not 
     import-sensitive in the context of all articles imported from 
     United States Trading partners. This subparagraph shall not 
     affect the designation of eligible articles under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(bb) Other requirements.--In addition to meeting the 
     requirements of division (aa), in the case of an article that 
     is the product or manufacture of the oil or mineral 
     extraction industry, and the business enterprise that 
     produces or manufactures the article is involved in a joint-
     venture arrangement with, or related to as a subsidiary, 
     trust, or subcontractor, a business enterprise organized 
     under the laws of the United States, the European Union, 
     Japan, or any other developed country (or group of developed 
     countries), or operating in such countries, the business 
     enterprise complies with the environmental standards that 
     would apply to a similar operation in the United States, 
     the European Union, Japan, or any other developed country 
     (or group of developed countries), as the case may be.
       ``(ii) Rule of construction.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     in applying section 111(b)(1) (A) through (H) and section 
     111(d) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, any 
     reference to textile and apparel goods or products shall be 
     deemed to refer to the article provided duty-free treatment 
     under clause (i).''.
       (b) Termination.--Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after section 505 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 505A. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS FOR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       ``No duty-free treatment provided under this title shall 
     remain in effect after September 30, 2006 in the case of a 
     beneficiary developing country that is a sub-Saharan African 
     country.''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 507 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2467) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Sub-saharan african country.--The terms `sub-Saharan 
     African country' and `sub-Saharan African countries' mean a 
     country or countries in sub-Saharan Africa, as defined in 
     section 104 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
       ``(7) Lome treaty product list.--The term `Lome Treaty 
     product list' means the list of products that may be granted 
     duty-free access into the European Union according to the 
     provisions of the fourth iteration of the Lome Covention 
     between the European Union and the African-Caribbean and 
     Pacific States (commonly referred to as `Lome IV') signed on 
     November 4, 1995.''.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for title V 
     of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 505 the following new item:

``505A. Termination of benefits for sub-Saharan African countries.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 113. ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT.

       A citizen of the United States shall have a cause of action 
     in the United States district court in the district in which 
     the citizen resides or in any other appropriate district to 
     seek compliance with the standards set forth under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section 111(b)(1), section 
     111(c), and section 111(d) of this Act with respect to any 
     sub-Saharan African country, including a cause of action in 
     an appropriate United States district court for other 
     appropriate equitable relief. In addition to any other relief 
     sought in such an action, a citizen may seek three times the 
     value of any damages caused by the failure of a country or 
     company to comply. The amount of damages described in the 
     preceding sentence shall be paid by the business enterprise 
     (or business enterprises) the operations or conduct of which 
     is responsible for the failure to meet the standards set 
     forth under subparagraphs (A) through (H) of section 
     111(b)(1), section 111(c), and section 111(d).

     SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN TRADE AND 
                   ECONOMIC COOPERATION FORUM.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--The President shall convene 
     annual meetings between senior officials of the United States 
     Government and officials of the governments of sub-Saharan 
     African countries in order to foster close economic ties 
     between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa.
       (b) Establishment.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the President, after consulting 
     with the officials of interested sub-Saharan African 
     governments, shall establish a United States-Sub-Saharan 
     African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Forum'').
       (c) Requirements.--In creating the Forum, the President 
     shall meet the following requirements:
       (1) First meeting.--The President shall direct the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Secretary of State, and the United States Trade 
     Representative to invite their counterparts from interested 
     sub-Saharan African governments and representatives of 
     appropriate regional organizations to participate in the 
     first annual meeting to discuss expanding trade and 
     investment relations between the United States and sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       (2) Nongovernmental organizations.--
       (A) In general.--The President, in consultation with 
     Congress, shall invite United States nongovernmental 
     organizations to host meetings with their counterparts from 
     sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum 
     for the purpose of discussing the issues described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Private sector.--The President, in consultation with 
     Congress, shall invite United States representatives of the 
     private sector to host meetings with their counterparts from 
     sub-Saharan Africa in conjunction with meetings of the Forum 
     for the purpose of discussing the issues described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Annual meetings.--As soon as practicable after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the President shall meet with the 
     heads of the governments of interested sub-Saharan African 
     countries for the purpose of discussing the issues described 
     in paragraph (1).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the two floor leaders--the 
chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee--for allowing me 
to make this modification to my amendment.
  I understand they will be opposing it, but I very much appreciate 
their willingness to allow me to offer it in the form I want.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act is all about increasing our 
level of trade with sub-Saharan Africa. That's a worthy goal, because 
the current level of trade between the American and the African people 
is depressingly small. Africa represents only 1 percent of U.S. 
imports, 1 percent of U.S. exports, and 1 percent of U.S. foreign 
direct investment. AGOA's supporters want to see those numbers 
increase, and that is what I want as well. However, the principal trade 
benefit appearing in AGOA is temporary preferential access to the U.S. 
market for textiles and apparel. This kind of legislation discourages 
the economic diversification that Africa needs to build economic 
strength.
  AGOA does renew the GSP program, but does not amend it to provide 
duty-free benefits for many of Africa's primary exports. This 
amendment, if accepted, will make the African Growth and Opportunity 
Act much more meaningful in terms of potential trade, while at the same 
time ensuring that this legislation does no harm. It expands the list 
of African products eligible for duty-free access to U.S. markets, 
while at the same time adding important qualifications to ensure that 
growth does not come at the expense of human development.
  My amendment would make goods listed under the Lome Convention 
eligible for duty-free access, provided those goods are not determined 
to be import-sensitive by the President of the United States. Products 
covered include all of sub-Saharan Africa's industrial products, all 
primary mineral products, and most of Africa's agricultural products, 
such as fruits, nuts, cereals, cocoa, and basketware. These provisions 
mean more trade opportunities for more African people.
  That's an important idea--opportunities for African people. In fact, 
unlike the African Growth and Opportunity Act as it stands now, this 
amendment would ensure that Africans themselves are employed at the 
firms receiving benefits. My amendment requires that any textile firm 
receiving trade benefits must employ a workforce that is 90 percent 
African. In addition, my amendment requires that 60 percent of the 
value-added to a product comes from Africa. These provisions hold out 
an incentive to African governments, businesses, and civil societies to 
develop their human resources. And that would not only be good for 
Africa, but it would be good for America as well, as our trade partners 
in the region gain economic strength. At the same time that this 
amendment does more for Africans, it also takes important steps to 
protect American jobs from being lost to transshipment.
  Trans-shipment occurs when textiles originating in one country are 
sent through another before they come to the United States. In this 
way, the actual country of origin can ignore U.S. quotas. Approximately 
$2 billion worth of illegally transshipped textiles enter the United 
States every year. The U.S. Customs Service has determined that for 
every $1 billion of illegally transshipped products that enter the 
United

[[Page S13774]]

States, 40,000 jobs in the textile and apparel sector are lost.
  Those who think that transshipment isn't going to be a problem in 
Africa had better think again. An official website of China's Ministry 
of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation quoted an analyst as saying 
that:

       Setting up assembly plants with Chinese equipment, 
     technology and personnel could not only greatly increase 
     sales in African countries, but also circumvent the quotas 
     imposed in commodities of Chinese origin imposed by European 
     and American countries.

  The Chinese know that standard United States protections against 
transshipment are weak and easy to defeat.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act, as it currently stands, 
relies on the same old weak protections that have led to these 
statistics--the same textile visa system that China and the other 
countries have manipulated in the past. This inadequate system requires 
government officials in the country of manufacturing to give textiles 
visas before those textiles can be exported, in order to certify the 
goods' country of origin. But often, corrupt officials simply sell 
visas to the highest bidder.
  My amendment would create a new system--one that makes the U.S. 
importer responsible for certifying where textiles and apparel were 
produced. This gives U.S. entities a strong financial stake in the 
legality of their imports. Instead of relying on foreign officials, 
this standard relies on the American companies who operate right here, 
under American law. This amendment also requires foreign governments to 
cooperate with Customs Service investigations into transshipment, or 
risk losing their trade benefits.
  If we pass this amendment, countries that want to skirt U.S. trade 
regulations will have to re-think their designs on Africa. As the 
Senate moves to increase the levels of legal trade between the United 
States and Africa, we must think carefully about the context in which 
we conduct our trade relations. Labor rights, human rights, and 
environmental protections are given short shrift by the current version 
of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This is a recipe for social 
unrest and distorted development, and it is clearly in the United 
States' best interest to address these issues.
  We are all affected when logging and mining deplete African 
rainforests and increase global warming. We are all degraded when the 
products we buy and use are created by exploitation and abuse. And we 
all reap the benefits of an Africa where freedom and human dignity 
reign, creating a stable environment in which business can thrive. 
American ideals and simple good sense require that we be vigilant in 
this regard. This amendment contains provisions to address labor 
rights, human rights, and environmental protection. Mr. President, 
Africa labor unions have been opposing AGOA for good reasons. This 
amendment takes their concerns seriously. It clearly spells out the 
labor rights that our trade partners in Africa must enforce in order to 
receive benefits. These include the right of association, the right to 
organize and bargain collectively, a prohibition on forced labor, 
minimum age of 15, and provisions for acceptable conditions with 
respect to wages, hours, and safety.
  This amendment also provides for a monitoring procedure that involves 
the Africa Region branch of the International Confederation of Free 
Trade Unions in compliance reporting. These provisions go far beyond 
the labor protections in the current bill, which are linked to GSP--and 
they do so for a reason. GSP labor rights provisions are rarely 
enforced. Some African countries--such as Equatorial Guinea--receive 
GSP currently yet do not allow the establishment of independent free 
trade unions. Clearly, GSP is not enough to ensure the growth and 
opportunity are not exchanged for abuse and exploitation.
  This amendment would also deny benefits to countries engaging in 
significant human rights abuses. Mr. President, that is stronger 
language than AGOA currently contains, and it sends a clear signal 
about the kinds of partners the United States is seeking in Africa. As 
it stands, AGOA contains no environmental provisions whatsoever. Yet in 
some African countries like Tanzania, 85 percent of the population 
lives directly off the land. Clearly, development in Africa is 
contingent on environmental sustainability. My amendment grants 
additional trade benefits to U.S. and other foreign investors from 
developed countries when they use the same environmental technology and 
practices in Africa that they use at home. This amendment makes AGOA 
more important and more responsible. If we are serious about engaging 
in Africa, let's make a genuine effort, rather than a token one. Let's 
make a responsible effort rather than an indifferent one.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, regretfully, but once again, I rise in 
opposition to this measure. It would add overly restrictive African 
content and citizenship requirements, and the transshipment penalties 
are extraordinary. On the matter of citizenship, sir, I would not doubt 
that there are 30 garment shops, factories, if you like, floors or 
lofts, in New York City, in Manhattan, where a majority of the 
employees are not American citizens. They are legal immigrants, they 
have rights of American workers, they are paid, and they pay taxes. But 
in the course of the last three centuries, we have seen enormous 
movements of labor from one place to another, a lot of recycling.
  If I could take one moment, since it is quiet and we have some 
distinguished Senators here, recently there was a study of illegal 
immigration from Mexico by some very fine sociologists, American and 
Mexican. The question is, Under what circumstances would illegal 
immigration increase? The answer is that immigration would increase if 
you sealed the borders because it is circular. People come up north to 
work. They raise money, and they go back and they can buy a car. Then 
they return. If there was a real wall, they would not go back. The 
world economy has been such since the 18th century. Exceedingly, these 
are good intentions of the Senator who offered essentially the same 
amendment yesterday.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I hope Senators are not confused by the 
comments of the Senator from New York. Certainly, the 90-percent 
requirement with regard to workers in Africa is one of many provisions 
in this. This is not the same amendment as yesterday. This involves 
labor protections, human rights protections, environmental protections, 
expanding the list of goods. This is a much broader alternative. In 
fact, it is essentially the HOPE alternative. So I hope the Senators 
vote for this. Although we received 44 votes on the transshipment 
amendment, this is by no means a vote on this particular provision. I 
want to be clear about that.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator is right. If I 
mischaracterized his amendment, I apologize. It is an extension of 
yesterday's amendment. Would he accept that characterization?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers a range of topics that have nothing to do 
with yesterday's amendment. It expands the number of products and trade 
and an alternative provision of what should be done. The Senator is 
correct that a couple of provisions are the same. I think many other 
provisions are of substantial importance, and I hope people regard this 
as an alternative approach.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I accept the Senator's account.
  Again, I make a motion to table the amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S13775]]

                           Amendment No. 2410

(Purpose: To provide expedited trade adjustment assistance for certain 
                      textile and apparel workers)

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2410.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR TEXTILE AND APPAREL 
                   WORKERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workers in 
     textile and apparel firms who lose their jobs or are 
     threatened with job loss as a result of either (1) a decrease 
     in the firm's sales or production; or (2) a firm's plant or 
     facility closure or relocation, shall be certified by the 
     Secretary of Labor as eligible to receive adjustment 
     assistance at the same level of benefits as workers certified 
     under subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 not later than 30 days after the date a petition for 
     certification is filed under such title II.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we consider the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, I rise to speak about the status of the United States 
textile and apparel industry. Last week I made a more complete 
statement regarding the demise of the industry, done in the name of 
free trade, under the guise of promoting market-based economies and 
democratic governments in developing countries.
  The result of these trade agreements on the textile and apparel 
industry in the United States has been a flood of imports and a 
significant impact on employment. In my own state, the loss of textile 
and apparel jobs has been particularly devastating. Since 1987, South 
Carolina has lost nearly one-third of all textile jobs and over 50 
percent of all its apparel jobs.
  Another concern I have is how our legislation impacts our broader 
foreign policy and drug control objectives. I am concerned that as we 
propose to drastically increase container shipping through the 
Caribbean, we will be exposing our Nation to the potential for a 
tremendous increase in illicit drug imports.
  Mr. President, the key to resolving many of our hemispheric problems 
is coordinating our criminal justice efforts, defense requirements, 
foreign policy, and economic and trade strategy toward Latin American 
countries. We cannot afford to look at these in isolation of one 
another.
  Finally, let me highlight some of the more dangerous elements of 
legislation which some in Congress are proposing. While the Senate bill 
alleviates some of the worst of these issues, I want the record to be 
clear on why these provisions must never become law. If, by some 
chance, this bill moves to a conference with the House, there may be an 
effort to incorporate some of these proposals. This would be a terrible 
mistake.
  There are some in Congress who would favor the quota-free entry into 
the United States for apparel made in the Caribbean Basin countries 
from fabric produced anywhere in the world. Such a provision would void 
the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
  Another flawed proposal is the scheme to use Tariff Preference 
Levels, whereby fabric produced anywhere in the world may be used in 
apparel sewn in the Caribbean Basin countries and imported duty-free 
and quota-free into the United States. Such preferences are permitted 
under NAFTA. Canada has used its preferences to export into the United 
States textile and apparel products made of non-North American yarns 
and fabrics. This violation of NAFTA has permitted $300 million from 
textile mills in Europe and Asia to severely damage U.S. manufacturers 
of wool suits and wool fabrics as well as other U.S. producers. 
Likewise, Mexico is now sending textiles and apparel made from cheap 
Asian yarns and fabrics into the United States. Tariff Preference 
Levels are bad for the American textile and apparel industry and for 
its workers. They must not be permitted to be extended further.
  Perhaps the worst provisions proposed in the House bill are those 
related to transshipment. Transshipment is the practice of producing 
textile and apparel goods in one country, and shipping it to the United 
States using the quota and tariff preferences reserved for a third 
country. The most egregious part of the House bill is that it fails to 
include provisions for origin verification identical to those in 
Article 506 of the North American Free Trade Act. This could lead to 
Africa and the Caribbean Basin being used as an illegal transshipment 
point by Asian manufacturers. It would encourage the use of non-U.S. 
produced fiber and fabric in apparel goods entering the United States 
duty-free.
  Finally, the House bill grants overly generous privileges and 
preferences to African and the Caribbean Basin countries in a 
unilateral fashion. There is little incentive for these countries to 
grant reciprocal access for products made in the United States.
  Mr. President, there is no question that unfair trade policies have 
negatively impacted employment levels in this important sector of our 
economy. There is no reason to believe the trade bills we are debating 
will lead to a different result. Furthermore, these bills raise serious 
national defense and foreign policy questions. Finally, many 
provisions, which unfortunately might be included in the final 
legislative product, would cause unnecessary harm to the textile and 
apparel industry in the United States. The textile and apparel firms 
may survive as they adapt to our legislative actions and changing 
economic conditions. American textile workers may not be so fortunate. 
This is my main concern--for those textile and apparel workers who work 
hard, pay their taxes and raise their families. This is why I have 
reservations about this bill.
  Mr. President, that is also why I am proposing an amendment to this 
bill. My amendment would correct an injustice in the current Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program. If you accept the premise that it is 
good policy for the Senate to enact legislation that will result in 
Americans losing their jobs, then you must agree that Trade Adjustment 
Assistance is a program which deserves our support. This program 
provides extended unemployment insurance coverage and retraining 
benefits to displaced workers. It is the least we can do for the 
Americans working in the textile and apparel industry who will lose 
their jobs because of this bill.
  My amendment would correct weaknesses in the current program. The 
Department of Labor would have 30 days to certify that the employees 
who are going to lose or who have lost their jobs would be eligible for 
the highest possible level of benefits available under the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program.
  Mr. President, I call up amendment number 2410 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It clarifies that 
textile workers who lose their job as a result of plant closure or 
relocation or as a result of a decrease in production or sales, shall 
receive trade adjustment assistance benefits from the Department of 
Labor. These benefits shall be the same as those available to workers 
who become employed as a result of NAFTA-related job losses.
  I urge support for this amendment. It is the least we can do for the 
thousands of Americans who are going to lose their jobs as a result of 
this legislation. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on amendment No. 2410 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2410) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, I 
think we are getting close to a vote on the Feingold amendment 
momentarily, or in the next few moments, and a vote on final passage.
  First, I want to compliment Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for 
their leadership in managing this bill. This wasn't the easiest bill in 
the world to manage. They handled it professionally and with great 
class. I think we are getting ready to pass a good bill. I

[[Page S13776]]

think we are going to pass a bill that proves, one, the Senate in 1999 
is not isolationist and protectionist. It proves we can help a lot of 
our fellow people across the world by expanding trade, whether they be 
in Africa or whether they be in the Caribbean nations. We want to help 
them through trade, which we believe is mutually beneficial.
  So I particularly compliment the two managers of this bill for their 
outstanding work and bringing to a close a bill that I think will be a 
real compliment to the first session of this Congress.


                           Amendment No. 2480

(Purpose: To provide a waiver of a section 901(j) denial of foreign tax 
  credit in the national interest of the United States, and to expand 
   trade and investment opportunities for U.S. companies and workers)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2480.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . APPLICATION OF DENIAL OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT 
                   REGARDING TRADE AND INVESTMENT WITH RESPECT TO 
                   CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 901(j) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to denial of foreign tax credit, etc., 
     regarding trade and investment with respect to certain 
     foreign countries) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Waiver of denial.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
     respect to taxes paid or accrued to a country if the 
     President--
       ``(i) determines that a waiver of the application of such 
     paragraph is in the national interest of the United States 
     and will expand trade and investment opportunities for U.S. 
     companies in such country, and
       ``(ii) reports such waivers under paragraph (B).
       ``(B) Report.--Not less than 30 days before the date on 
     which a waiver is granted under this paragraph, the President 
     shall report to Congress--
       ``(i) the intention to grant such waiver, and
       ``(ii) the reason for the determination under subparagraph 
     (A)(i).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply on or after February 1, 2001.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the essence of this amendment is to allow 
the President of the United States a waiver to section 901, which 
denies foreign tax credits if he determines it is in the national 
interest of the United States and also to expand trade and investment 
opportunities for U.S. companies and workers.
  Again, I appreciate the cooperation of both managers of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. ROTH. I call for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2480) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2402

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I call up the Dorgan amendment No. 2402.
  There is no further debate on this amendment. I ask that we proceed 
with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2402) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2427

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we are now prepared to return to Senator 
Feingold's amendment, No. 2427 and proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2427. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 352 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     McCain
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 2505

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously 
agreed to managers' amendment be modified with a technical change which 
is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

     SEC. 621. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TARIFF INVERSIONS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that United States trade 
     policy should, while taking into account the conditions of 
     United States producers, especially those currently facing 
     tariff phase-outs negotiated under prior trade agreements, 
     place a priority on the elimination or amelioration of tariff 
     inversions that undermine the competitiveness of United 
     States consuming industries.


                           Amendment No. 2325

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated on the substitute amendment and the amendment be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2325) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture motion on the underlying bill be vitiated and the bill be read 
a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is a difficult vote for me. This bill 
contains provisions I support such as the reauthorization of the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Act (TAA) and the Africa Growth and Opportunity 
Act. But the

[[Page S13777]]

CBI provision of the bill is troubling because it extends benefits 
unilaterally without assurances that reciprocal trade benefits will be 
granted to U.S. products.
  However, with the adoption of the Levin-Moynihan amendment some 
progress is assured because under this amendment, the President would 
be required to take into consideration the extent to which a country 
provides internationally recognized worker rights, including child 
labor, collective bargaining, the use of forced or coerced labor, 
occupational health and safety and labor standards before the trade 
benefit can be granted.
  The adoption of this amendment is a major reason I have decided to 
vote for this bill.
  I hope this provision can be further strengthened in Conference. 
However, at a minimum, Senator Moynihan has assured me a strong effort 
will be made to retain the provision in Conference.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Comparison of Levin-Moynihan Amendment with Underlying Bill

          (Criteria for Designating CBTEA Beneficiary Country)

       Under the Senate bill prior to adoption of the Levin-
     Moynihan amendment, to designate a beneficiary CBTEA country, 
     the President must determine that a country has demonstrated 
     a commitment to three things: (I) undertake its obligations 
     under the WTO on or ahead of schedule; (II) participate in 
     negotiations toward the completion of the FTAA or a 
     comparable trade agreement; and (III) undertake other steps 
     necessary for that country to become a party to the FTAA or a 
     comparable trade agreement.
       It then allows the President to consider ten criteria for 
     making the determination that a country has demonstrated a 
     commitment to the above three things. Among the ten criteria 
     that can be considered is; the extent to which a country 
     provides protection of intellectual property rights; the 
     extent to which the country provides protections to investors 
     and investment of the U.S. and; the extent to which the 
     country provides internationally recognized worker rights.
       The Levin-Moynihan amendment would require that in 
     designating a beneficiary country, the President must 
     consider the extent to which that country has demonstrated a 
     commitment to each of the 13 criteria in the underlying bill. 
     In other words, the Levin-Moynihan amendment elevates the 
     criteria in the underlying bill to a mandatory status for 
     consideration. Under this amendment, the President, in 
     designating a country as a CBTEA country, must take into 
     account, for instance, the extent to which the country 
     provides internationally recognized worker rights, including:
       (a) the right of association, (b) the right to organize and 
     bargain collectively, (c) prohibition on the use of any form 
     of coerced or compulsory labor, (d) a minimum age for the 
     employment of children, and (e) acceptable conditions of work 
     with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and 
     occupational safety and health.
       Some of the other specifically recognized items for 
     mandatory consideration in our amendment are: (a) whether the 
     country has met specific counter-narcotics certification 
     criteria, (b) the extent to which the country becomes a party 
     to and implements the Inter-American Convention Against 
     Corruption, (c) the extent to which the country affords to 
     products of the U.S. tariff treatment that is no less 
     favorable then the most favorable tariff treatment provided 
     by the country to any other country pursuant to any free 
     trade agreement to which such a country is a party, other 
     then the Central American Common Market or the Caribbean 
     Community and Common Market.
       Under the Levin-Moynihan amendment consideration of these 
     items is no longer just an option. The President must take 
     these factors into consideration.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this bill was not an easy bill for me to 
support. While I believe that fostering trade with our neighbors leads 
to growth both here and abroad, I also know that some companies use 
trade to take advantage of foreign low wage workers. I had hoped that 
this bill would take stronger measures to ensure that labor and 
environmental rights received greater respect.
  I opposed cloture initially on this bill because it would unfairly 
limit the ability to improve the bill. After an agreement was worked 
out to allow trade related amendments, I decided to support cloture to 
move the legislation forward. I supported amendments that would have 
required labor and environmental agreements and stricter oversight of 
imports to avoid trans-shipment. I was disappointed that these 
amendments were not agreed to, but I encourage the conferees to 
continue fighting for these important issues.
  Some important changes were made. The Senate included a provision to 
help our farmers cope with the negative effects of trade agreements. 
This Trade Adjustment Assistance for farmers parallels the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program that has helped so many industrial 
workers. Senator Harkin offered an amendment that will go a long way 
toward eliminating child labor in these developing countries if they 
hope to take advantage of the benefits in this legislation. This 
provision makes the bill more humane, and reflects our moral values, 
not just our economic interests.
  While the bill is not perfect, increasing opportunity for some of the 
poorest countries is an important goal and deserves the support of the 
Senate. The countries of the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa know that 
trade and investment coupled with aid programs are more effective than 
foreign aid alone. The countries involved support this bill and look 
forward to a chance to sell their products in our market.
  The struggle for labor standards is a long road, but that journey 
cannot start if people do not have jobs. There is no way to improve 
working conditions for the unemployed. Only when trade and investment 
bring jobs to these countries will workers be able to organize and 
fight for better conditions. Many of these countries are new 
democracies that have much to learn about the benefits of protecting 
their workers. We should remember that the United States is a democracy 
that is 225 years old, and that the backbone of our labor laws are only 
65 years old. Those laws did not come easily. There was a long, bitter, 
and sometimes bloody fight before the United States saw the wisdom of 
protecting workers rights. We need to continue our efforts, both at the 
government and non-governmental level, to convince these countries to 
follow our example. Unfortunately, our trade negotiators have only 
recently come to the conclusion that labor rights matter to workers 
here and abroad.
  Making access to the U.S. market difficult is not going to improve 
the lot of workers in Africa and the Caribbean. The more we do to 
engage these countries and improve the climate for investment, the 
closer these countries get to moving out of poverty and toward 
prosperity.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am, unfortunately, unable to be 
present for this vote, but would like to express my support for the 
final passage of the amended version of H.R. 434, the African Growth 
and Opportunity Act. This legislation includes a modified version of 
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the United States-Caribbean 
Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and reauthorization of the Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
programs.
  This legislation will end up helping more than 1 billion people begin 
to enjoy the benefits of democracy and the free market system. 
Unfortunately when most Americans think of recent politics in Sub-
Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they only think of dictatorships, 
civil wars, and people crushed in the grip of poverty. It is a 
compelling portrait and shows the necessity of this legislation.
  However, there is hope in the nightly news reports. Both in the 
Caribbean and in Africa, democracy and economic development are 
emerging from the shambles of the past. According to a 1998 global 
survey by Freedom House, 30 countries in Africa are now politically 
free or partially free. In addition, these countries are beginning to 
pursue policies of economic development that will help their citizens 
rise above the debilitating poverty of the past. In 1998, while the 
Asian economic crisis pummelled other countries, Africa's economies 
actually grew by an average rate of 3.1 percent.
  Democracy and market economics also are established in the Caribbean. 
The civil wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have ended. 
Unfortunately, many of these countries are still suffering from the 
effects of Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, and need these trade benefits 
to rebuild their economies.
  This year's elections in Nigeria and South Africa, and the upcoming 
election in Guatemala, exemplify the democratic developments in Africa 
and the Caribbean. As the bulwark of freedom and liberty, the United 
States

[[Page S13778]]

must do all that it can to ensure that democracy and market economics 
continue to spread and grow. This legislation is crafted to aid these 
transformations.
  The African Growth and Opportunity Act establishes a special GSP 
program to give duty and quota-free treatment to selected African 
textiles and goods, and enhances cooperation between the United States 
and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is my hope that the President will use the 
provisions of this legislation to seriously pursue a free trade 
agreement with the leaders of Sub-Saharan African countries. The United 
States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act grants selected exports 
from Caribbean nations the duty- and quota-free treatment that has 
benefitted Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

  Finally, the reauthorization of the GSP program helps many other 
developing countries benefit from preferential trade treatment. These 
GSP provisions will help developing countries become members of the 
global community and prosper in the growing world marketplace. Also, 
this legislation will reinforce the core American values of freedom and 
equal opportunity that are a cornerstone of our great country. This 
legislation is based on the commonsense principle that if you give a 
nation a handout, you feed it for a day, but if you teach its people to 
grow and trade, you assist them in becoming independent and self-
reliant.
  This legislation also helps U.S. workers and companies. U.S. exports 
to the Caribbean nations exceeded $19 billion last year, and produced a 
$2 billion trade surplus. This trade has created 400,000 American jobs. 
In 1998, the United States exported $6.5 billion in goods to Sub-
Saharan Africa. This trade supported over 100,000 American jobs. 
However, the United States only has a 7% share in the African market, 
while Europe has a 40% share. More U.S. trade and investment in both 
the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa will increase U.S. market share 
and create more American jobs.
  While I support this legislation, I believe that it can be improved 
during the conference with our colleagues from the House side. The 
House-passed version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act includes 
programs under the auspices of the Export-Import Bank and Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation that will give American companies 
incentives to invest in Africa. Also, I am concerned that the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that ``almost no apparel imports 
would qualify for special treatment'' under the textile provisions of 
the Finance Committee amendment. The House-passed version of the bill 
removes quotas and duties on all African textile imports, and will be 
of much greater benefit to the African nations as well as to the U.S. 
It is my hope that the conferees will adopt these provisions in the 
House-passed version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. These 
measures will ensure true economic development and increased U.S. 
market access in Africa.
  In addition, I have some concerns about the provision of the bill 
referring to the excise tax collected on rum. This provision increases 
by $3.00 the amount of the excise tax on rum that is transferred to 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands retroactively from June 30, 
1999, to October 1, 1999. The bill earmarks $0.50 of this tax for the 
Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund. I am aware of the importance of 
helping our territories to become economically self-reliant, while also 
protecting their environments. However, I believe that we should look 
at more efficient ways to achieve this goal. It makes no sense for the 
federal government to collect a tax and then turn it all back over to 
the territories. I hope that this provision will be stricken from this 
legislation, and that we can more thoroughly examine how to help our 
territories achieve economic growth without unnecessary federal 
bureaucracy and taxation.
  I am also concerned about certain other provisions that have found 
their way into this legislation. This legislation includes a provision 
to extend TAA benefits to farmers and fishermen. I know that the 
collapse of foreign markets abroad has hurt American farmers and 
believe that this issue should be given more consideration. I am also 
concerned by provisions included for Oregon power plant workers to 
apply for TAA benefits after their eligibility has expired, provisions 
to allow a company with operations in Connecticut and Missouri to 
obtain a refund on duties it paid on imports of nuclear fuel 
assemblies, and $2 million earmark for a two-year study on how American 
Land Grant Colleges and not-for-profit international organizations can 
improve the flow of American farming techniques and practices for 
African farmers. These measures should be examined in the usual 
authorization process to ensure that it is considered on merit and not 
special interests. It should not be attached to this legislation when 
Senators have not had a chance to examine the costs and benefits.
  In conclusion, I support this historic legislation to ensure the 
progress of democracy and economic development in Africa, the 
Caribbean, and other developing countries. By promoting freedom and 
interdependence, the United States can help millions of people live in 
a future without repression where any child's potential is limited only 
by their dreams.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of 
utmost importance to American suit manufacturers in New York and around 
the country, an issue that my colleague Pat Moynihan has been fighting 
on for many years.
  I am referring to an anomaly in America's tariff policy that harms 
American companies like Hickey-Freeman, Pietrafesa, and other producers 
of fine wool suits.
  Our response will determine whether this country will be able to 
support companies that manufacture suits with a ``Made in America'' 
label.
  My general belief is that free trade is a boon to the overall 
economy. But our wool tariff policy is a patchwork quilt of part free 
trade, part high tariff, part no tariff: policies stitched together 
with no rhyme or reason as to how it will impact U.S. companies and 
consumers.
  Under the current tariff schedule, U.S. suit companies that must 
import the very high quality wool fabric used to make high-end men's 
suits pay a tariff of 30 percent on that fabric. These American 
companies, in turn, compete with companies that import finished wool 
suits from other countries, which pay a 19 percent tariff on the 
finished suit. And since the NAFTA agreement, U.S. importers of suits 
made in Canada and Mexico pay no tariff whatever.
  And those Canadian and Mexican suit manufacturers pay no, or very 
low, duties on their imported wool fabric from Italy and elsewhere. 
They, in effect, get a perfectly free ride into the U.S. market, while 
American clothing companies, employing American textile workers, have 
to pay to play.
  Where is the consistency here? All we have today are randomly placed 
zero, 19 percent, or 30 percent tariffs with no concern over the big 
picture: American companies and American jobs.
  In fact, U.S. companies have been fighting a war of attrition for 
nearly ten years, a war which they are slowly losing, due solely to 
American laws.
  So we are now at a crossroads.
  Some domestic fabric manufacturers support the tariff policies 
because they argue that Hickey-Freeman and other high-end suit 
manufacturers ought to buy their fabric here in the U.S. That would be 
great--if there was ample domestic supply of the fabric these suit 
companies require: But there is not.
  According to leading American fabric manufacturers, U.S.-produced 
high-end wool fabric supply falls short of demand by more than 2.5 
million square meters. That leaves Hickey-Freeman, a Rochester, New 
York, institution since 1899, Pietrafesa of Syracuse New York, and 
dozens of other fine suit manufacturers with two options: import more 
than half of their wool fabric at a 30 percent tariff, or shift their 
operations to countries where they will not be hindered by the 
restrictive added costs they face here.
  In other words, these American companies are virtually compelled to 
move their operations out of the U.S. by these irrational U.S. laws.
  That is why the textile workers unions are fighting hard to repeal 
these unfair tariff policies. Indeed, since 1991, fine suit 
manufacturers in New York and around the country have been forced to 
close dozens of manufacturing

[[Page S13779]]

facilities, and lay off more than 10,000 employees.
  Don't get me wrong: I support the idea of free trade. I believe that 
our nation is the strongest and most prosperous on earth, and in such a 
strong global leadership position, due to our open trading system, and 
our principles of free trade which we help instill on other nations 
around the world.
  But what I'm talking about today is not free trade. It is a hodge-
podge of non-sensical trade laws. These wool tariffs give the advantage 
to foreign companies in other countries in their ability to compete in 
our market.
  All I ask for is a level playing field--I believe that under fair 
trade and competition the U.S. worker and U.S. industries will prevail. 
But they will not be given a chance if the deck is stacked against 
them. Under current law, the game is fixed.
  Now, I recognize that good faith negotiations are ongoing between 
American fine wool suit manufacturers, domestic wool producers, 
Senators Moynihan and Roth, Members of this body from interested 
states, and the White House. Senator Moynihan has, for many years, made 
this unfair wool tariff a cornerstone of his efforts to ensure fair 
trade. And I am doing what I can to help move these negotiations along.
  But I want to make clear that we need to resolve this issue as soon 
as possible. The American fine suit industry and their employees can 
wait no longer. Too many jobs have already been lost due to these 
tariffs, and too many more remain on the line.
  The trade package currently under consideration in the Senate 
provides the best opportunity to finally provide economic justice to 
American companies struggling to compete in a global trading system 
which is still struggling to work out its kinks.
  I believe that reasonable minds will resolve this issue when the 
facts are clear to all involved. And the main fact is that loyal, 
productive, U.S. companies are currently at a serious disadvantage in 
its own home economy. That should not stand.


                    Amendments No. 2379 and No. 2483

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to explain my reasons for voting 
to table amendments No. 2379 and No. 2483 sponsored by Senator 
Hollings. The two amendments would have required the United States to 
negotiate side agreements with the countries named in the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade 
Enhancement Act concerning labor standards and the environment similar 
to the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation and the North 
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. Mandating that the 
United States negotiate agreements before providing the benefits 
granted to these countries under this act would have had the effect of 
nullifying the bill.
  Labor and environmental issues should be considered when negotiating 
trade agreements. In today's global economy, the economic actions of 
one country can have profound implications for the entire world 
economy. We witnessed this firsthand with the recent global economic 
crisis. Just as the economic decisions of one person in Indonesia can 
have significant consequences for someone in Germany, the living 
standards, working conditions, and the environment standards of workers 
in Peru or Malaysia can have an impact on our workers here in the 
United States.
  The two amendments offered by Senator Hollings have admirable goals, 
however they are unworkable in the context of this bill. Because this 
bill calls for the United States to take the unilateral action of 
reducing tariffs on a wide range of products in order to provide 
incentive for these countries to develop their economies, it would be 
out of place to mandate negotiations that were designed to accompany 
bilateral trade agreements. If we are serious about protecting workers 
and the environment, we should include them as part of a bilateral 
negotiation when our trading partners will have obligations to fulfill.
  Our goal with this bill is to improve and grow the economies of sub-
Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin. We are doing this by opening 
our markets in the hope that these economies will integrate into the 
world economy as responsible trading partners and will develop as 
future markets for our exports.
  The two amendments offered by Senator Hollings would have had the 
effect of neutralizing the underlying bill to support economic 
development in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean Basin. I could 
support similar amendments when they are raised in the context of trade 
agreements when side agreements can be enforced.


                        tariffs on wool fabrics

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the chairman and ranking 
member for their efforts on an issue that is important to workers in 
Illinois, as well as those in New York and other states. Specifically, 
I refer to their efforts and leadership in addressing the need to 
modify tariffs on wool fabrics used in the men's suit industry. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 218 introduced by Senator 
Moynihan at the beginning of this year, and have worked with both 
Senators from New York and many other colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, on this issue.
  Because of a loophole in NAFTA, Canadian suitmakers have become our 
largest source of imported suits at the expense of tens of thousands of 
American workers who have seen their plants close. I am a supporter of 
NAFTA--I voted for it and I believe it is good trade policy for our 
country. However, as part of NAFTA, concessions were made by our U.S. 
negotiators to allow Canada to bring Canadian manufactured suits in to 
the United States, duty-free. Canada proceeded by removing its tariffs 
on imported wool fabrics, setting up a situation where its 
manufacturers could import the same fine wool fabrics American 
manufacturers import, manufacture a suit in Canada, and export that 
suit to the United States, without paying a single tariff. Our U.S. 
manufacturers are forced to pay over 30 percent in tariffs for this 
same fine wool fabric. All our manufacturers ask for from us is to 
provide a level playing field on which they can compete.
  This has been a difficult issue to resolve because of the various 
stakeholders involved. However, unless the final trade bill offers some 
relief for this industry, more Americans will lose their jobs as a 
result of our own U.S. trade policies.
  The pending amendment will allow this issue to be resolved in 
conference, and I commend both our majority and minority committee 
leaders for their efforts.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I also thank my chairman for his work, 
and that of his staff, in addressing an issue that I have worked on for 
many years. I first started this effort with my friend Congresswoman 
Louise Slaughter a number of years ago. Since that time even more 
Americans have lost their jobs as a result of tariffs on wool fabric--
fabric that is not produced in the quantity and quality needed by our 
domestic industry. I believe that we are close to finalizing an 
approach to finally resolve this issue, and I commend the chairman for 
his willingness to work with us on this important matter.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on behalf of the thousands of workers in 
New York, I join my colleagues in thanking both Chairman Roth and 
Senator Moynihan for their work on this issue. Earlier this year I was 
visited by one of these workers, Mr. Fred Cotraccia, a Shop Steward for 
Hickey-Freeman of Rochester, NY. At that time he explained to me the 
importance of providing relief to the suit manufacturing industry, and 
he presented me with a teddy bear dressed in an American-made, hand-
made, fine wool fabric suit. In a letter from him accompanying the bear 
he says, ``Please stand up for American jobs . . . My livelihood and 
the livelihood of thousands of other hard working American employees, 
depends on you supporting our jobs--please choose `made in America.' ''
  A number of my Senate colleagues received a similar type letter, and 
a similar request to help save their jobs. I believe we have made 
significant strides in finding a way to provide relief to this industry 
at the expense of no one, but to the benefit of many.
  Mr. KERRY. Today we must vote on a package of bills that are intended 
to promote trade and thereby lift-up the economies of sub-Saharan 
African and Carribean Basin nations. I believe strongly in that 
premise. I believe that

[[Page S13780]]

free and fair trade can improve the lives of workers in developing 
nations and is vital to improve our economy at home. On balance, this 
achieves those goals, and I therefore support it.
  Much of the debate surrounding this package of trade bills has 
centered on the provisions dealing with Africa. This is proper, as it 
is the AGOA portion of the bill that I am most concerned about. Many 
argue that AGOA is the last chance for Africa to develop a textile 
industry. In 2005, current quotas on textiles from Asia and other parts 
of the world will be lifted. If we lift those quotas on sub-Saharan 
African countries now, those countries may have some chance to develop 
their textile industry in the next five years, before Asia--especially 
China--has a chance to dominate textile manufacturing. If Africa does 
not develop its textile industry now, there is no way it will be able 
to compete with China in 2005. This would not only hurt African 
nations, who will be without a textile industry, but it will hurt US 
apparel manufacturers, who will have one less resource to produce their 
products and will be forced to send more of their work to China.
  That said, this bill fails to address many of the crucial problems 
facing Africa, and it would be tragic if this were the final word on 
Africa. First, this bill fails to address the perhaps the single 
greatest barrier to economic growth and development in Africa: the 
spread of AIDS. Unless our efforts to combat this epidemic are 
bolstered immediately, this public health disaster will result in 
severe economic distress for African countries. The effect of this 
disease, which strikes people in their most economically productive 
years, cannot be ignored if we expect these countries to be effective 
trading partners. It is imperative and entirely appropriate to include 
AIDS relief in this legislation. A recent study in Namibia estimated 
that AIDS cost the country almost 8 percent of its GNP in 1996. Another 
analysis predicts that Kenya's GDP will be 14.5 percent smaller in 2005 
than it would have been without AIDS, and that income per person will 
be 10 percent lower.
  The microeconomic outlook is not much better. Businesses across sub-
Saharan Africa are already suffering at the hands of HIV. In Zimbabwe, 
for instance, life insurance premiums grew four-fold in just two years 
because of AIDS deaths. Some companies there have reported a doubling 
of their health bills. In Botswana, companies estimate that AIDS-
related costs will soar from under one percent of wages in 1999 to five 
percent by 2005. In Zambia and Tanzania, some companies have already 
reported that costs resulting from AIDS-related health costs and lower 
productivity have exceeded total profits. Without addressing a health 
crisis of this enormity, we are ignoring one of the most important 
impediments to development of the African continent.
  The second concern I have with the AGOA bill is that it ignores the 
great albatross of debt that hangs around the neck of the African 
people and is a tremendous impediment to their economic growth and 
development. AGOA provides no debt relief to Africa, despite the fact 
that Africa's crushing $230 billion debt burden is a massive obstacle 
to economic and social progress. By ending the vicious circle of debt 
and debt servicing, debt relief for Africa would open the way for 
private investment in African enterprises, investment that is critical 
to the long-term development and growth of every economy.

  I believe that the United States should play a prominent role in 
reducing the debt burden of nations that are unable to achieve 
sustainable economic growth and development under the constraint of 
servicing their national debts. Our economic relationship with Africa 
must take the long view and advance policies that will build a solid 
basis for continued growth, rather than simply extending the short-
sighted, debt-centered policies of decades past.
  Unfortunately, many amendments that would have begun to address the 
weaknesses of the AGOA bill failed on the Senate floor. I supported 
amendments that would have improved labor and environmental standards 
and that would have better addressed transhipment concerns. Although 
those amendments failed, I will, nevertheless, support this package, 
not because I am fully satisfied with its treatment of Africa, but 
because as a whole, the package includes other important trade measures 
that will not only bolster the economies of developing nations, but 
will have a positive economic impact here at home. I have long been a 
proponent of Trade Adjustment Assistance as a way to help U.S. workers 
and industries that have been harmed by trade. The Generalized System 
of Preferences is also a crucial to developing countries by stimulating 
their exports. I am pleased that this package includes these very 
important programs.
  Finally, the CBI portion of the package will put our neighbors in the 
Caribbean on more equal footing with Mexico. By providing duty free 
treatment to apparel assembled in the Caribbean basin only if US 
fabrics are used, this bill will strengthen the economy and long term 
stability of Caribbean Basin countries. This will go a long way to help 
them to recover from the extensive damage they suffered during 
Hurricanes Mitch and Georges. The U.S. has a trade surplus with 
Caribbean Basin which has led to more and better jobs in my home state 
of Massachusetts and throughout the country.
  Because the balance of the package of trade bills before us today is 
favorable, I support the bill with the sincere hope that we revisit the 
issues of concern to sub-Saharan Africa soon.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we have stepped back from the brink. A 
week ago it appeared that we would reject this essential trade 
legislation. The first in five years. Weeks before the opening of the 
Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization, which 
will launch a new round of trade negotiations. Here in the United 
States, in Seattle.
  As a tribute to the patience of our esteemed chairman, Senator Roth, 
and our leaders Senators Lott and Daschle, we somehow agreed to revive 
the bill. We now move one step closer to providing the President with 
legislation that will confirm, when he arrives in Seattle, that the 
United States Senate remains committed to open trade policies.
  I join the chairman of the Finance Committee in urging the Senate's 
support for this package of trade measures which includes the Finance 
Committee's sub-Saharan African and CBI trade bills, as well as the 
reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs. Each of these measures was 
approved by the Finance Committee with near unanimous support.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Greenspan noted, in a speech he 
delivered in Boston on June 2, the ``recent evident weakening of 
support for free trade in this country.'' We appear to be turning 
against trade policies that we have pursued for 65 years. It is hard to 
understand this in a period when, as the New York Times reported last 
Friday:

       The American economy turned in its best quarterly 
     performance of the year this summer, virtually guaranteeing 
     enough momentum to carry the nation to its longest economic 
     expansion in history early next year.

  Let me repeat that last phrase--``its longest economic expansion in 
history. . . .'' Not just peacetime, or just wartime, but ``in 
history.''
  And what are the benefits of this unprecedented economic expansion--
an expansion that started in April 1991, is now in its eighth year, 
will break the record of 107 months in February 2000, and shows no sign 
of ending? The answer is clear: an unemployment rate of 4.2 percent--a 
level not seen in almost 30 years; and near zero inflation.
  To what can we attribute this remarkable performance of the American 
economy?
  I dare say that if the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 was one of the 
causes of World War II, then trade liberalization is one of the reasons 
for the unprecedented expansion.
  Other factors I would cite are just-in-time inventories--made 
possible by the information age, the 1993 deficit reduction act, Alan 
Greenspan, and perhaps some ``good luck.''
  Given the tremendous transformation of the American economy--between 
1960 and 1998 manufacturing employment dropped from 30 to 15 percent of 
total employment--there inevitably were and will be dislocations. Since 
1962 we have eased the cost of

[[Page S13781]]

dislocation to workers by providing Trade Adjustment Assistance--
assistance which will expire at the end of this week. More than 200,000 
workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. The bill before 
us would continue Trade Adjustment Assistance, something we ought to do 
as we enact trade liberalization policies.
  I would also note that this legislation reflects our commitment to 
honor the ILO's core labor standards, a commitment made by all 174 
members of the ILO. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and 
Rights at Work, adopted at the 86th International Labor Conference, 
declares that ``all members, even if they have not ratified the 
Convention in question, have an obligation, arising from the very fact 
of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote, and to 
realize, in good faith'' these core labor standards; (1) freedom of 
association and the effective recognition of the right to collective 
bargaining; (2) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory 
labor; (3) the effective abolition of child labor; and (4) the 
elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
  Under the managers' substitute the President must assess the 
compliance of the CBI and sub-Saharan African countries with these core 
labor standards--these ``internationally recognized worker rights.''
  The Generalized System of Preferences--which we put in place a 
quarter century ago--was the United States' response to the plea of 
developing countries that the industrial world ought to give them an 
opportunity--and a bit of an incentive--to compete in world markets. 
The theme then--as today--was that ``trade, not aid'' would ultimately 
wean countries from their dependence on foreign aid and help diversify 
their economies. This legislation will continue this important program.
  The bill puts in place--at long last--a trade policy with respect to 
sub-Saharan Africa, a policy that is long overdue. The economic 
challenges facing sub-Saharan Africa today may be even greater than 
they were at the height of the cold war. Consider the differing paths 
of South Korea and Ghana: in 1958, the year after Ghana achieved 
independence, its per capita GDP, at $203, exceeded that of South Korea 
($171 at the time). Forty years later, in 1998, South Korea's per 
capita income had soared to $10,550, even after the Asian financial 
crisis, while Ghana's stood at a modest $390.
  The Africa trade legislation in this package will not reverse years 
of neglect and decline, but it may provide a decent start.
  And we endorse with this legislation President Reagan's Caribbean 
Basin Initiative--begun in 1983--updating the program to enable the CBI 
countries to remain competitive even as the NAFTA has eroded their 
market positions. The chairman and I met 6 weeks ago with the 
Presidents and Vice Presidents and Foreign Ministers of a number of the 
CBI states--the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Costa Rica. They made a simple request--that we allow our trade to 
grow. And so this legislation will do.
  This is legislation which deserves strong support here in the Senate, 
so that we can quickly move to a conference with the House and send the 
President to Seattle negotiations with the bipartisan backing of trade 
liberalization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended, 
pass? The yea and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 353 Leg.]

                                YEAS--76

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Helms
     Hollings
     Leahy
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Santorum
  The bill (H.R. 434), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I want to take a few seconds to thank my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for a very strong bipartisan 
support for the bill. I also want to extend my thanks to the majority 
and minority leaders who worked so hard to find the compromise that 
enabled the legislation to move forward.
  Let me underscore and emphasize that we would not be where we are if 
it had not been for my good friend, Senator Moynihan. His patience, his 
historical perspective on trade, and the key role he has played through 
the years were instrumental in getting this legislation through. I want 
to say I think it gives a clear statement to our neighbors in the 
Caribbean, Central America, and Africa that we are willing to invest in 
a long-term economic relationship--a relationship of partners and a 
common endeavor of expanding trade, enhancing economic growth, and 
improving living standards.
  I also think, most importantly, it will send a very clear signal to 
our partners around the world that isolationism is dead, that liberal 
trade policies are still supported overwhelmingly. It signals, I 
believe, that the United States is prepared to engage constructively in 
the wider world around us and to provide the kind of leadership 
necessary to reach our common goals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I stand here to assert that we would not 
be here at this moment without the revered chairman of the Committee on 
Finance. He has kept to a party tradition that goes back generations. 
He has enabled us, sir, to pass the first trade bill in this Senate in 
5 years. We were beginning to send a signal that was ominous and could 
have been, in the end, ruinous. But we have stepped back from that 
brink, and we have William Roth of Delaware to thank.
  I thank all of our wornout and excellent associates, David Podoff, 
Debbie Lamb, Linda Menghetti, and Tim Hogan on our side, and all of the 
majority staff. I see Frank Polk over there, and Grant Aldonas, Faryar 
Shirzad and Tim Keeler. It is a fine moment. Let us hope we make the 
most of it, sir.
  With great thanks to all, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Roth, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Helms, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Biden conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.

[[Page S13782]]

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

                          ____________________