[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3610-S3619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under the Act, and 
     for other purposes, which had been reported from the 
     Committee on Finance, with an amendment to strike all after 
     the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Andean Trade Preference 
     Expansion Act''.

                    TITLE I--ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since the Andean Trade Preference Act was enacted in 
     1991, it has had a positive impact

[[Page S3611]]

     on United States trade with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and 
     Peru. Two-way trade has doubled, with the United States 
     serving as the leading source of imports and leading export 
     market for each of the Andean beneficiary countries. This has 
     resulted in increased jobs and expanded export opportunities 
     in both the United States and the Andean region.
       (2) The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a key element 
     in the United States counternarcotics strategy in the Andean 
     region, promoting export diversification and broad-based 
     economic development that provides sustainable economic 
     alternatives to drug-crop production, strengthening the 
     legitimate economies of Andean countries and creating viable 
     alternatives to illicit trade in coca.
       (3) Notwithstanding the success of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act, the Andean region remains threatened by 
     political and economic instability and fragility, vulnerable 
     to the consequences of the drug war and fierce global 
     competition for its legitimate trade.
       (4) The continuing instability in the Andean region poses a 
     threat to the security interests of the United States and the 
     world. This problem has been partially addressed through 
     foreign aid, such as Plan Colombia, enacted by Congress in 
     2000. However, foreign aid alone is not sufficient. 
     Enhancement of legitimate trade with the United States 
     provides an alternative means for reviving and stabilizing 
     the economies in the Andean region.
       (5) The Andean Trade Preference Act constitutes a tangible 
     commitment by the United States to the promotion of 
     prosperity, stability, and democracy in the beneficiary 
     countries.
       (6) Renewal and enhancement of the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act will bolster the confidence of domestic private 
     enterprise and foreign investors in the economic prospects of 
     the region, ensuring that legitimate private enterprise can 
     be the engine of economic development and political stability 
     in the region.
       (7) Each of the Andean beneficiary countries is committed 
     to conclude negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas 
     by the year 2005, as a means of enhancing the economic 
     security of the region.
       (8) Temporarily enhancing trade benefits for Andean 
     beneficiaries countries will promote the growth of free 
     enterprise and economic opportunity in these countries and 
     serve the security interests of the United States, the 
     region, and the world.

     SEC. 102. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 204(b) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5), 
     the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not 
     apply to--
       ``(A) textile and apparel articles which were not eligible 
     articles for purposes of this title on January 1, 1994, as 
     this title was in effect on that date;
       ``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of 
     the generalized system of preferences under title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974;
       ``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in 
     airtight containers;
       ``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
       ``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets, 
     and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to, 
     mechanical, quartz digital, or quartz analog, if such watches 
     or watch parts contain any material which is the product of 
     any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty 
     apply;
       ``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(G) sugars, syrups, and sugar containing products subject 
     to tariff-rate quotas; or
       ``(H) rum and tafia classified in subheading 2208.40 of the 
     HTS.
       ``(2) Transition period treatment of certain textile and 
     apparel articles.--
       ``(A) Articles covered.--During the transition period, the 
     preferential treatment described in subparagraph (B) shall 
     apply to the following articles:
       ``(i) Apparel articles assembled from products of the 
     united states and atpea beneficiary countries or products not 
     available in commercial quantities.--Apparel articles sewn or
     otherwise assembled in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, 
     or the United States, or both, exclusively from any one or 
     any combination of the following:

       ``(I) Fabrics or fabric components formed, or components 
     knit-to-shape, in the United States, from yarns wholly formed 
     in the United States (including fabrics not formed from 
     yarns, if such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 
     5603 of the HTS and are formed in the United States), 
     provided that apparel articles sewn or
     otherwise assembled from materials described in this 
     subclause are assembled with thread formed in the United 
     States.
       ``(II) Fabric components knit-to-shape in the United States 
     from yarns wholly formed in the United States and fabric 
     components knit-to-shape in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary 
     countries from yarns wholly formed in the United States.
       ``(III) Fabrics or fabric components formed or components 
     knit-to-shape, in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, from 
     yarns wholly formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, 
     if such fabrics (including fabrics not formed from yarns, if 
     such fabrics are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of 
     the HTS and are formed in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary 
     countries) or components are in chief weight of llama, 
     alpaca, or vicuna.

       ``(IV) Fabrics or yarns that are not formed in the United 
     States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries, to the 
     extent that apparel articles of such fabrics or yarns would 
     be eligible for preferential treatment, without regard to the 
     source of the fabrics or yarns, under Annex 401 of the NAFTA.

       ``(ii) Knit-to-shape apparel articles.--Apparel articles 
     knit-to-shape (other than socks provided for in heading 6115 
     of the HTS) in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries from 
     yarns wholly formed in the United States.
       ``(iii) Regional fabric.--

       ``(I) General rule.--Knit apparel articles wholly assembled 
     in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries exclusively from 
     fabric formed, or fabric components formed, or components 
     knit-to-shape, or any combination thereof, in 1 or more ATPEA 
     beneficiary countries from yarns wholly formed in the United 
     States, in an amount not exceeding the amount set forth in 
     subclause (II).
       ``(II) Limitation.--The amount referred to in subclause (I) 
     is 70,000,000 square meter equivalents during the 1-year 
     period beginning on March 1, 2002, increased by 16 percent, 
     compounded annually, in each succeeding 1-year period through 
     February 28, 2006.

       ``(iv) Certain other apparel articles.--

       ``(I) General rule.--Subject to subclause (II), any apparel 
     article classifiable under subheading 6212.10 of the HTS, if 
     the article is both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in 
     the United States, or one or more of the ATPEA beneficiary 
     countries, or both.
       ``(II) Limitation.--During the 1-year period beginning on 
     March 1, 2003, and during each of the 2 succeeding 1-year 
     periods, apparel articles described in subclause (I) of a 
     producer or an entity controlling production shall be 
     eligible for preferential treatment under subparagraph (B) 
     only if the aggregate cost of fabric components formed in the 
     United States that are used in the production of all such 
     articles of that producer or entity that are entered during 
     the preceding 1-year period is at least 75 percent of the 
     aggregate declared customs value of the fabric contained in 
     all such articles of that producer or entity that are entered 
     during the preceding 1-year period.
       ``(III) Development of procedure to ensure compliance.--The 
     United States Customs Service shall develop and implement 
     methods and procedures to ensure ongoing compliance with the 
     requirement set forth in subclause (II). If the Customs 
     Service finds that a producer or an entity controlling 
     production has not satisfied such requirement in a 1-year 
     period, then apparel articles described in subclause (I) of 
     that producer or entity shall be ineligible for preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (B) during any succeeding 1-year 
     period until the aggregate cost of fabric components formed 
     in the United States used in the production of such articles 
     of that producer or entity that are entered during the 
     preceding 1-year period is at least 85 percent of the 
     aggregate declared customs value of the fabric contained in 
     all such articles of that producer or entity that are entered 
     during the preceding 1-year period.

       ``(v) Apparel articles assembled from fabrics or yarn not 
     widely available in commercial quantities.--At the request of 
     any interested party, the President is authorized to proclaim 
     additional fabrics and yarn as eligible for preferential 
     treatment under clause (i)(IV) if--

       ``(I) the President determines that such fabrics or yarn 
     cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial 
     quantities in a timely manner;
       ``(II) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from the appropriate advisory committee 
     established under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2155) and the United States International Trade 
     Commission;
       ``(III) within 60 days after the request, the President has 
     submitted a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate that sets forth the action proposed to be proclaimed 
     and the reasons for such actions, and the advice obtained 
     under subclause (II);
       ``(IV) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning with the 
     first day on which the President has met the requirements of 
     subclause (III), has expired; and
       ``(V) the President has consulted with such committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in subclause (III).

       ``(vi) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--A 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country identified under subparagraph (C) that is 
     certified as such by the competent authority of such 
     beneficiary country.
       ``(vii) Special rules.--

       ``(I) Exception for findings and trimmings.--(aa) An 
     article otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under 
     this paragraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article contains findings or trimmings of foreign 
     origin, if such findings and trimmings do not exceed 25 
     percent of the cost of the components of the assembled 
     product. Examples of findings and trimmings are sewing 
     thread, hooks and eyes, snaps, buttons, `bow buds', 
     decorative lace, trim, elastic strips, zippers, including 
     zipper tapes and labels, and other similar products. Elastic 
     strips are considered findings or trimmings only if they 
     are each less than 1 inch in width and are used in the 
     production of brassieres.

       ``(bb) In the case of an article described in clause (i)(I) 
     of this subparagraph, sewing thread shall not be treated as 
     findings or trimmings under this subclause.
       ``(II) Certain interlinings.--(aa) An article otherwise 
     eligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     shall not be ineligible for such treatment because the 
     article contains certain interlinings of foreign origin, if 
     the value of

[[Page S3612]]

     such interlinings (and any findings and trimmings) does not 
     exceed 25 percent of the cost of the components of the 
     assembled article.
       ``(bb) Interlinings eligible for the treatment described in 
     division (aa) include only a chest type plate, `hymo' piece, 
     or `sleeve header', of woven or weft-inserted warp knit 
     construction and of coarse animal hair or man-made filaments.
       ``(cc) The treatment described in this subclause shall 
     terminate if the President makes a determination that United 
     States manufacturers are producing such interlinings in the 
     United States in commercial quantities.
       ``(III) De minimis rule.--An article that would otherwise 
     be ineligible for preferential treatment under this paragraph 
     because the article contains yarns not wholly formed in the 
     United States or in 1 or more ATPEA beneficiary countries 
     shall not be ineligible for such treatment if the total 
     weight of all such yarns is not more than 7 percent of the 
     total weight of the good. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, an apparel article containing elastomeric yarns 
     shall be eligible for preferential treatment under this 
     paragraph only if such yarns are wholly formed in the United 
     States.
       ``(IV) Special origin rule.--An article otherwise eligible 
     for preferential treatment under clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph shall not be ineligible for such treatment 
     because the article contains nylon filament yarn (other than 
     elastomeric yarn) that is classifiable under subheading 
     5402.10.30, 5402.10.60, 5402.31.30, 5402.31.60, 5402.32.30, 
     5402.32.60, 5402.41.10, 5402.41.90, 5402.51.00, or 5402.61.00 
     of the HTS duty-free from a country that is a party to an 
     agreement with the United States establishing a free trade 
     area, which entered into force before January 1, 1995.
       ``(V) Clarification of certain knit apparel articles.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an article 
     otherwise eligible for preferential treatment under clause 
     (iii)(I) of this subparagraph, shall not be ineligible for 
     such treatment because the article, or a component thereof, 
     contains fabric formed in the United States from yarns wholly 
     formed in the United States.

       ``(viii) Textile luggage.--Textile luggage--

       ``(I) assembled in an ATPEA beneficiary country from fabric 
     wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly 
     formed in the United States, that is entered under subheading 
     9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
       ``(II) assembled from fabric cut in an ATPEA beneficiary 
     country from fabric wholly formed in the United States from 
     yarns wholly formed in the United States.

       ``(B) Preferential treatment.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (E), during the transition period, the articles 
     to which subparagraph (A) applies shall enter the United 
     States free of duty and free of any quantitative 
     restrictions, limitations, or consultation levels.
       ``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(vi), the President shall consult 
     with representatives of the ATPEA beneficiary countries 
     concerned for the purpose of identifying particular textile 
     and apparel goods that are mutually agreed upon as being 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind described 
     in section 2.3(a), (b), or (c) of the Annex or Appendix 
     3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
       ``(D) Penalties for transshipments.--
       ``(i) Penalties for exporters.--If the President 
     determines, based on sufficient evidence, that an exporter 
     has engaged in transshipment with respect to textile or 
     apparel articles from an ATPEA beneficiary country, then the 
     President shall deny all benefits under this title to such 
     exporter, and any successor of such exporter, for a period of 
     2 years.
       ``(ii) Penalties for countries.--Whenever the President 
     finds, based on sufficient evidence, that transshipment has 
     occurred, the President shall request that the ATPEA 
     beneficiary country or countries through whose territory the 
     transshipment has occurred take all necessary and appropriate 
     actions to prevent such transshipment. If the President 
     determines that a country is not taking such actions, the 
     President shall reduce the quantities of textile and apparel 
     articles that may be imported into the United States from 
     such country by the quantity of the transshipped articles 
     multiplied by 3, to the extent consistent with the 
     obligations of the United States under the WTO.
       ``(iii) Transshipment described.--Transshipment within the 
     meaning of this subparagraph has occurred when preferential 
     treatment under subparagraph (B) has been claimed for a 
     textile or apparel article on the basis of material false 
     information concerning the country of origin, manufacture, 
     processing, or assembly of the article or any of its 
     components. For purposes of this clause, false information is 
     material if disclosure of the true information would mean or 
     would have meant that the article is or was ineligible for 
     preferential treatment under subparagraph (B).
       ``(E) Bilateral emergency actions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may take bilateral 
     emergency tariff actions of a kind described in section 4 of 
     the Annex with respect to any apparel article imported 
     from an ATPEA beneficiary country if the application of 
     tariff treatment under subparagraph (B) to such article 
     results in conditions that would be cause for the taking 
     of such actions under such section 4 with respect to a 
     like article described in the same 8-digit subheading of 
     the HTS that is imported from Mexico.
       ``(ii) Rules relating to bilateral emergency action.--For 
     purposes of applying bilateral emergency action under this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) the requirements of paragraph (5) of section 4 of the 
     Annex (relating to providing compensation) shall not apply;
       ``(II) the term `transition period' in section 4 of the 
     Annex shall have the meaning given that term in paragraph 
     (5)(D) of this subsection; and
       ``(III) the requirements to consult specified in section 4 
     of the Annex shall be treated as satisfied if the President 
     requests consultations with the ATPEA beneficiary country in 
     question and the country does not agree to consult within the 
     time period specified under section 4.

       ``(3) Transition period treatment of certain other articles 
     originating in beneficiary countries.--
       ``(A) Equivalent tariff treatment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the tariff 
     treatment accorded at any time during the transition period 
     to any article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B), (D) 
     through (F), or (H) of paragraph (1) that is an ATPEA 
     originating good shall be identical to the tariff treatment 
     that is accorded at such time under Annex 302.2 of the NAFTA 
     to an article described in the same 8-digit subheading of the 
     HTS that is a good of Mexico and is imported into the United 
     States.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to any article 
     accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b) to 
     subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
       ``(B) Relationship to subsection (c) duty reductions.--If 
     at any time during the transition period the rate of duty 
     that would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) in 
     regard to such period) apply with respect to any article 
     under subsection (c) is a rate of duty that is lower than the 
     rate of duty resulting from such action, then such lower rate 
     of duty shall be applied for the purposes of implementing 
     such action.
       ``(C) Special rule for sugars, syrups, and sugar containing 
     products.--Duty-free treatment under this Act shall not be 
     extended to sugars, syrups, and sugar-containing products 
     subject to over-quota duty rates under applicable tariff-rate 
     quotas.
       ``(D) Special rule for certain tuna products.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may proclaim duty-free 
     treatment under this Act for tuna that is harvested by United 
     States vessels or ATPEA beneficiary country vessels, and is 
     prepared or preserved in any manner, in airtight containers 
     in an ATPEA beneficiary country. Such duty-free treatment may 
     be proclaimed in any calendar year for a quantity of such 
     tuna that does not exceed 20 percent of the domestic United 
     States tuna pack in the preceding calendar year. As used in 
     the preceding sentence, the term `tuna pack' means tuna pack 
     as defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the 
     United States Department of Commerce for purposes of 
     subheading 1604.14.20 of the HTS as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.
       ``(ii) United states vessel.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, a `United States vessel' is a vessel having a 
     certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement under 
     chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code.
       ``(iii) ATPEA vessel.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     an `ATPEA vessel' is a vessel--

       ``(I) which is registered or recorded in an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country;
       ``(II) which sails under the flag of an ATPEA beneficiary 
     country;
       ``(III) which is at least 75 percent owned by nationals of 
     an ATPEA beneficiary country or by a company having its 
     principal place of business in an ATPEA beneficiary country, 
     of which the manager or managers, chairman of the board of 
     directors or of the supervisory board, and the majority of 
     the members of such boards are nationals of an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country and of which, in the case of a company, 
     at least 50 percent of the capital is owned by an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country or by public bodies or nationals of an 
     ATPEA beneficiary country;
       ``(IV) of which the master and officers are nationals of an 
     ATPEA beneficiary country; and
       ``(V) of which at least 75 percent of the crew are 
     nationals of an ATPEA beneficiary country.

       ``(4) Customs procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Regulations.--Any importer that claims preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) shall comply with 
     customs procedures similar in all material respects to the 
     requirements of Article 502(1) of the NAFTA as implemented 
     pursuant to United States law, in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(ii) Determination.--

       ``(I) In general.--In order to qualify for the preferential 
     treatment under paragraph (2) or (3) and for a Certificate of 
     Origin to be valid with respect to any article for which such 
     treatment is claimed, there shall be in effect a 
     determination by the President that each country described in 
     subclause (II)--

       ``(aa) has implemented and follows; or
       ``(bb) is making substantial progress toward implementing 
     and following, procedures and requirements similar in all 
     material respects to the relevant procedures and 
     requirements under chapter 5 of the NAFTA.

       ``(II) Country described.--A country is described in this 
     subclause if it is an ATPEA beneficiary country--

       ``(aa) from which the article is exported; or
       ``(bb) in which materials used in the production of the 
     article originate or in which the article or such materials 
     undergo production that contributes to a claim that the 
     article is eligible for preferential treatment under 
     paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(B) Certificate of origin.--The Certificate of Origin 
     that otherwise would be required pursuant to the provisions 
     of subparagraph (A) shall not be required in the case of an 
     article imported under paragraph (2) or (3) if such 
     Certificate of Origin would not be required under Article 503 
     of the NAFTA (as implemented pursuant to United States law), 
     if the article were imported from Mexico.

[[Page S3613]]

       ``(C) Report by ustr on cooperation of other countries 
     concerning circumvention.--The United States Commissioner of 
     Customs shall conduct a study analyzing the extent to which 
     each ATPEA beneficiary country--
       ``(i) has cooperated fully with the United States, 
     consistent with its domestic laws and procedures, in 
     instances of circumvention or alleged circumvention of 
     existing quotas on imports of textile and apparel goods, to 
     establish necessary relevant facts in the places of import, 
     export, and, where applicable, transshipment, including 
     investigation of circumvention practices, exchanges of 
     documents, correspondence, reports, and other relevant 
     information, to the extent such information is available;
       ``(ii) has taken appropriate measures, consistent with its 
     domestic laws and procedures, against exporters and importers 
     involved in instances of false declaration concerning fiber 
     content, quantities, description, classification, or origin 
     of textile and apparel goods; and
       ``(iii) has penalized the individuals and entities involved 
     in any such circumvention, consistent with its domestic laws 
     and procedures, and has worked closely to seek the 
     cooperation of any third country to prevent such 
     circumvention from taking place in that third country.
     The Trade Representative shall submit to Congress, not later 
     than October 1, 2002, a report on the study conducted under 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Annex.--The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the 
     NAFTA.
       ``(B) ATPEA beneficiary country.--The term `ATPEA 
     beneficiary country' means any `beneficiary country', as 
     defined in section 203(a)(1) of this title, which the 
     President designates as an ATPEA beneficiary country, taking 
     into account the criteria contained in subsections (c) and 
     (d) of section 203 and other appropriate criteria, including 
     the following:
       ``(i) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a 
     commitment to--

       ``(I) undertake its obligations under the WTO, including 
     those agreements listed in section 101(d) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act, on or ahead of schedule; and
       ``(II) participate in negotiations toward the completion of 
     the FTAA or another free trade agreement.

       ``(ii) The extent to which the country provides protection 
     of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater 
     than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights described in 
     section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       ``(iii) The extent to which the country provides 
     internationally recognized worker rights, including--

       ``(I) the right of association;
       ``(II) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
       ``(III) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or 
     compulsory labor;
       ``(IV) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
       ``(V) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum 
     wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;

       ``(iv) Whether the country has implemented its commitments 
     to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in 
     section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.
       ``(v) The extent to which the country has met the counter-
     narcotics certification criteria set forth in section 490 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) for 
     eligibility for United States assistance.
       ``(vi) The extent to which the country has taken steps to 
     become a party to and implements the Inter-American 
     Convention Against Corruption.
       ``(vii) The extent to which the country--

       ``(I) applies transparent, nondiscriminatory, and 
     competitive procedures in government procurement equivalent 
     to those contained in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     described in section 101(d)(17) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act; and
       ``(II) contributes to efforts in international fora to 
     develop and implement international rules in transparency in 
     government procurement.

       ``(C) ATPEA originating good.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `ATPEA originating good' means 
     a good that meets the rules of origin for a good set forth in 
     chapter 4 of the NAFTA as implemented pursuant to United 
     States law.
       ``(ii) Application of chapter 4.--In applying chapter 4 of 
     the NAFTA with respect to an ATPEA beneficiary country for 
     purposes of this subsection--

       ``(I) no country other than the United States and an ATPEA 
     beneficiary country may be treated as being a party to the 
     NAFTA;
       ``(II) any reference to trade between the United States and 
     Mexico shall be deemed to refer to trade between the United 
     States and an ATPEA beneficiary country;
       ``(III) any reference to a party shall be deemed to refer 
     to an ATPEA beneficiary country or the United States; and
       ``(IV) any reference to parties shall be deemed to refer to 
     any combination of ATPEA beneficiary countries or to the 
     United States and one or more ATPEA beneficiary countries (or 
     any combination thereof ).

       ``(D) Transition period.--The term `transition period' 
     means, with respect to an ATPEA beneficiary country, the 
     period that begins on the date of enactment, and ends on the 
     earlier of--
       ``(i) February 28, 2006; or
       ``(ii) the date on which the FTAA or another free trade 
     agreement that makes substantial progress in achieving the 
     negotiating objectives set forth in section 108(b)(5) of 
     Public Law 103-182 (19 U.S.C. 3317(b)(5)) enters into force 
     with respect to the United States and the ATPEA beneficiary 
     country.
       ``(E) ATPEA.--The term `ATPEA' means the Andean Trade 
     Preference Expansion Act.
       ``(F) FTAA.--The term `FTAA' means the Free Trade Area of 
     the Americas.''.
       (b) Determination Regarding Retention of Designation.--
     Section 203(e) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3202(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The President may, after the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) have been met--
       ``(i) withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as 
     an ATPEA beneficiary country; or
       ``(ii) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of 
     preferential treatment under section 204(b) (2) and (3) to 
     any article of any country,
     if, after such designation, the President determines that, as 
     a result of changed circumstances, the performance of such 
     country is not satisfactory under the criteria set forth in 
     section 204(b)(5)(B).''; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) If preferential treatment under section 204(b) (2) 
     and (3) is withdrawn, suspended, or limited with respect to 
     an ATPEA beneficiary country, such country shall not be 
     deemed to be a `party' for the purposes of applying section 
     204(b)(5)(C) to imports of articles for which preferential 
     treatment has been withdrawn, suspended, or limited with 
     respect to such country.''.
       (c) Reporting Requirements.--Section 203(f ) of the Andean 
     Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(f )) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(f ) Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, and 
     every 2 years thereafter during the period this title is in 
     effect, the United States Trade Representative shall submit 
     to Congress a report regarding the operation of this title, 
     including--
       ``(A) with respect to subsections (c) and (d), the results 
     of a general review of beneficiary countries based on the 
     considerations described in such subsections; and
       ``(B) the performance of each beneficiary country or ATPEA 
     beneficiary country, as the case may be, under the criteria 
     set forth in section 204(b)(5)(B).
       ``(2) Public comment.--Before submitting the report 
     described in paragraph (1), the United States Trade 
     Representative shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     requesting public comments on whether beneficiary countries 
     are meeting the criteria listed in section 204(b)(5)(B).''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Section 202 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3201) is amended by inserting ``(or other preferential 
     treatment)'' after ``treatment''.
       (B) Section 204(a)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3203(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(or 
     otherwise provided for)'' after ``eligibility''.
       (C) Section 204(a)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3203(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(or 
     preferential treatment)'' after ``duty-free treatment''.
       (2) Definitions.--Section 203(a) of the Andean Trade 
     Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3202(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, 
     Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(5) The terms `WTO' and `WTO member' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 2 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501).''.

     SEC. 103. TERMINATION.

       Section 208(b) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3206(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Termination of Preferential Treatment.--No 
     preferential duty treatment extended to beneficiary countries 
     under this Act shall remain in effect after February 28, 
     2006.''.

                TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS TRADE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. WOOL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Wool 
     Manufacturer Payment Clarification and Technical Corrections 
     Act''.
       (b) Clarification of Temporary Duty Suspension.--Heading 
     9902.51.13 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States is amended by inserting ``average'' before 
     ``diameters''.
       (c) Payments to Manufacturers of Certain Wool Products.--
       (1) Payments.--Section 505 of the Trade and Development Act 
     of 2000 (Public Law 106-200; 114 Stat. 303) is amended as 
     follows:
       (A) Subsection (a) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``In each of the calendar years'' and 
     inserting ``For each of the calendar years''; and
       (ii) by striking ``for a refund of duties'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the subsection and inserting ``for 
     a payment equal to an amount determined pursuant to 
     subsection (d)(1).''.
       (B) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Wool Yarn.--
       ``(1) Importing manufacturers.--For each of the calendar 
     years 2000, 2001, and 2002, a manufacturer of worsted wool 
     fabrics who imports wool yarn of the kind described in 
     heading 9902.51.13 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
     United States shall be eligible for a payment equal to an 
     amount determined pursuant to subsection (d)(2).

[[Page S3614]]

       ``(2) Nonimporting manufacturers.--For each of the calendar 
     years 2001 and 2002, any other manufacturer of worsted wool 
     fabrics of imported wool yarn of the kind described in 
     heading 9902.51.13 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
     United States shall be eligible for a payment equal to an 
     amount determined pursuant to subsection (d)(2).''.
       (C) Subsection (c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Wool Fiber and Wool Top.--
       ``(1) Importing manufacturers.--For each of the calendar 
     years 2000, 2001, and 2002, a manufacturer of wool yarn or 
     wool fabric who imports wool fiber or wool top of the kind 
     described in heading 9902.51.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States shall be eligible for a payment 
     equal to an amount determined pursuant to subsection (d)(3).
       ``(2) Nonimporting manufacturers.--For each of the calendar 
     years 2001 and 2002, any other manufacturer of wool yarn or 
     wool fabric of imported wool fiber or wool top of the kind 
     described in heading 9902.51.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States shall be eligible for a payment 
     equal to an amount determined pursuant to subsection 
     (d)(3).''.
       (D) Section 505 is further amended by striking subsection 
     (d) and inserting the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Amount of Annual Payments to Manufacturers.--
       ``(1) Manufacturers of men's suits, etc. of imported 
     worsted wool fabrics.--
       ``(A) Eligible to receive more than $5,000.--Each annual 
     payment to manufacturers described in subsection (a) who, 
     according to the records of the Customs Service as of 
     September 11, 2001, are eligible to receive more than $5,000 
     for each of the calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2002, shall be 
     in an amount equal to one-third of the amount determined by 
     multiplying $30,124,000 by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the amount attributable to 
     the duties paid on eligible wool products imported in 
     calendar year 1999 by the manufacturer making the claim, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount 
     attributable to the duties paid on eligible wool products 
     imported in calendar year 1999 by all the manufacturers 
     described in subsection (a) who, according to the records of 
     the Customs Service as of September 11, 2001, are eligible to 
     receive more than $5,000 for each such calendar year under 
     this section as it was in effect on that date.
       ``(B) Eligible wool products.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `eligible wool products' refers to imported 
     worsted wool fabrics described in subsection (a).
       ``(C) Others.--All manufacturers described in subsection 
     (a), other than the manufacturer's to which subparagraph (A) 
     applies, shall each receive an annual payment in an amount 
     equal to one-third of the amount determined by dividing 
     $1,665,000 by the number of all such other manufacturers.
       ``(2) Manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics of imported 
     wool yarn.--
       ``(A) Importing manufacturers.--Each annual payment to an 
     importing manufacturer described in subsection (b)(1) shall 
     be in an amount equal to one-third of the amount 
     determined by multiplying $2,202,000 by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the amount attributable to 
     the duties paid on eligible wool products imported in 
     calendar year 1999 by the importing manufacturer making the 
     claim, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount 
     attributable to the duties paid on eligible wool products 
     imported in calendar year 1999 by all the importing 
     manufacturers described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) Eligible wool products.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `eligible wool products' refers to imported 
     wool yarn described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(C) Nonimporting manufacturers.--Each annual payment to a 
     nonimporting manufacturer described in subsection (b)(2) 
     shall be in an amount equal to one-half of the amount 
     determined by multiplying $141,000 by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the amount attributable to 
     the purchases of imported eligible wool products in calendar 
     year 1999 by the nonimporting manufacturer making the claim, 
     and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount 
     attributable to the purchases of imported eligible wool 
     products in calendar year 1999 by all the nonimporting 
     manufacturers described in subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Manufacturers of wool yarn or wool fabric of imported 
     wool fiber or wool top.--
       ``(A) Importing manufacturers.--Each annual payment to an 
     importing manufacturer described in subsection (c)(1) shall 
     be in an amount equal to one-third of the amount determined 
     by multiplying $1,522,000 by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the amount attributable to 
     the duties paid on eligible wool products imported in 
     calendar year 1999 by the importing manufacturer making the 
     claim, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount 
     attributable to the duties paid on eligible wool products 
     imported in calendar year 1999 by all the importing 
     manufacturers described in subsection (c)(1).
       ``(B) Eligible wool products.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `eligible wool products' refers to imported 
     wool fiber or wool top described in subsection (c)(1).
       ``(C) Nonimporting manufacturers.--Each annual payment to a 
     nonimporting manufacturer described in subsection (c)(2) 
     shall be in an amount equal to one-half of the amount 
     determined by multiplying $597,000 by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the amount attributable to 
     the purchases of imported eligible wool products in calendar 
     year 1999 by the nonimporting manufacturer making the claim, 
     and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the amount attributable 
     to the purchases of imported eligible wool products in 
     calendar year 1999 by all the nonimporting manufacturers 
     described in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(4) Letters of intent.--Except for the nonimporting 
     manufacturers described in subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) who 
     may make claims under this section by virtue of the enactment 
     of the Wool Manufacturer Payment Clarification and Technical 
     Corrections Act, only manufacturers who, according to the 
     records of the Customs Service, filed with the Customs 
     Service before September 11, 2001, letters of intent to 
     establish eligibility to be claimants are eligible to make a 
     claim for a payment under this section.
       ``(5) Amount attributable to purchases by nonimporting 
     manufacturers.--
       ``(A) Amount attributable.--For purposes of paragraphs 
     (2)(C) and (3)(C), the amount attributable to the purchases 
     of imported eligible wool products in calendar year 1999 by a 
     nonimporting manufacturer shall be the amount the 
     nonimporting manufacturer paid for eligible wool products in 
     calendar year 1999, as evidenced by invoices. The 
     nonimporting manufacturer shall make such calculation and 
     submit the resulting amount to the Customs Service, within 45 
     days after the date of enactment of the Wool Manufacturer 
     Payment Clarification and Technical Corrections Act, in a 
     signed affidavit that attests that the information contained 
     therein is true and accurate to the best of the affiant's 
     belief and knowledge. The nonimporting manufacturer shall 
     retain the records upon which the calculation is based for a 
     period of five years beginning on the date the affidavit is 
     submitted to the Customs Service.
       ``(B) Eligible wool product.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) the eligible wool product for nonimporting 
     manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics is wool yarn of the 
     kind described in heading 9902.51.13 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States purchased in calendar year 
     1999; and
       ``(ii) the eligible wool products for nonimporting 
     manufacturers of wool yarn or wool fabric are wool fiber or 
     wool top of the kind described in heading 9902.51.14 of such 
     Schedule purchased in calendar year 1999.
       ``(6) Amount attributable to duties paid.--For purposes of 
     paragraphs (1), (2)(A), and (3)(A), the amount attributable 
     to the duties paid by a manufacturer shall be the amount 
     shown on the records of the Customs Service as of September 
     11, 2001, under this section as then in effect.
       ``(7) Schedule of payments; reallocations.--
       ``(A) Schedule.--Of the payments described in paragraphs 
     (1), (2)(A), and (3)(A), the Customs Service shall make the 
     first installment on or before December 31, 2001, the second 
     installment on or before April 15, 2002, and the third 
     installment on or before April 15, 2003. Of the payments 
     described in paragraphs (2)(C) and (3)(C), the Customs 
     Service shall make the first installment on or before April 
     15, 2002, and the second installment on or before April 15, 
     2003.
       ``(B) Reallocations.--In the event that a manufacturer that 
     would have received payment under subparagraph (A) or (C) of 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) ceases to be qualified for such 
     payment as such a manufacturer, the amounts otherwise payable 
     to the remaining manufacturers under such subparagraph shall 
     be increased on a pro rata basis by the amount of the payment 
     such manufacturer would have received.
       ``(8) Reference.--For purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and 
     (6), the `records of the Customs Service as of September 11, 
     2001' are the records of the Wool Duty Unit of the Customs 
     Service on September 11, 2001, as adjusted by the Customs 
     Service to the extent necessary to carry out this section. 
     The amounts so adjusted are not subject to administrative or 
     judicial review.
       ``(e) Affidavits by Manufacturers.--
       ``(1) Affidavit required.--A manufacturer may not receive a 
     payment under this section for calendar year 2000, 2001, or 
     2002, as the case may be, unless that manufacturer has 
     submitted to the Customs Service for that calendar year a 
     signed affidavit that attests that, during that calendar 
     year, the affiant was a manufacturer in the United States 
     described in subsection (a), (b), or (c).
       ``(2) Timing.--An affidavit under paragraph (1) shall be 
     valid--
       ``(A) in the case of a manufacturer described in paragraph 
     (1), (2)(A), or (3)(A) of subsection (d) filing a claim for a 
     payment for calendar year 2000, only if the affidavit is 
     postmarked no later than 15 days after the date of enactment 
     of the Wool Manufacturer Payment Clarification and Technical 
     Corrections Act; and
       ``(B) in the case of a claim for a payment for calendar 
     year 2001 or 2002, only if the affidavit is postmarked no 
     later than March 1, 2002, or March 1, 2003, respectively.
       ``(f) Offsets.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section, any amount otherwise payable under subsection (d) to 
     a manufacturer in calendar year 2001 and, where applicable, 
     in calendar years 2002 and 2003, shall be reduced by the 
     amount of any payment received by that manufacturer under 
     this section before the enactment of the Wool Manufacturer 
     Payment Clarification and Technical Corrections Act.
       ``(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the 
     manufacturer is the party that owns--
       ``(1) imported worsted wool fabric, of the kind described 
     in heading 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States, at the time the fabric is cut 
     and sewn in the United States into men's or boys' suits, 
     suit-type jackets, or trousers;
       ``(2) imported wool yarn, of the kind described in heading 
     9902.51.13 of such Schedule, at the time the yarn is 
     processed in the United States into worsted wool fabric; or
       ``(3) imported wool fiber or wool top, of the kind 
     described in heading 9902.51.14 of such

[[Page S3615]]

     Schedule, at the time the wool fiber or wool top is processed 
     in the United States into wool yarn.''.
       (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated and is 
     appropriated, out of amounts in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $36,251,000 to carry out 
     the amendments made by paragraph (1).

     SEC. 202. CEILING FANS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, ceiling fans classified under subheading 8414.51.00 of 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States imported 
     from Thailand shall enter duty-free and without any 
     quantitative limitations, if duty-free treatment under title 
     V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.) would 
     have applied to such entry had the competitive need 
     limitation been waived under section 503(d) of such Act.
       (b) Applicability.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply to ceiling fans described in subsection (a) that are 
     entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption--
       (1) on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) before July 30, 2002.

     SEC. 203. CERTAIN STEAM OR OTHER VAPOR GENERATING BOILERS 
                   USED IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subheading 9902.84.02 of the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
       (1) by striking ``4.9%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
       (2) by striking ``12/31/2003'' and inserting ``12/31/
     2006''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after January 1, 2002.


                           Amendment No. 3386

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, with the authority of the Finance 
Committee, I withdraw the committee amendment and send an amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment is withdrawn.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3386.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that further 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 ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have just sent to the desk 
legislation that includes three components: First, the trade promotion 
authority; second, trade adjustment assistance; and third, the Andean 
Trade Preference Expansion Act.
  The trade adjustment assistance measures are particularly crucial 
because they will provide help to dislocated workers. This package 
includes job search assistance, unemployment insurance, and, for the 
first time, much needed health benefits. We are now ready to begin the 
debate on this important trade legislation and, as we have noted for 
some time, this bill is open to amendment and we encourage Senators to 
come forth with their amendments soon.
  I look forward to a full and spirited debate. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, sometime when the Senate is doing its best 
work, it is not always visible. Throughout the day, we have been having 
discussions that involved the managers of this legislation. They have 
been talking to members of the Finance Committee and communicating with 
the administration. It is very important that we have the straight 
legislation. There are a lot of different views on both sides of the 
aisle about exactly how this should proceed, or whether it is a good 
idea.
  There are those who say, yes, we would like to have trade promotion 
authority, but there must be trade adjustment assistance to go with it 
for those who might be displaced from jobs so they can get assistance 
with training and get into the next job.
  It is important we move forward. Everybody's options are still 
preserved. Senator Daschle and I have indicated to each other that 
there is not going to be any precipitous move. We want to take a look 
at the actual language. Sometimes it is hard to negotiate a moving 
target or when there is not a clear understanding of what is involved.
  We now have a document. We are going to take a look at it tonight. I 
hope we can begin to move forward, perhaps even with amendments 
tomorrow. We will go over the language, and we will be talking further 
with the managers of the legislation and make sure the administration 
has a chance to review it.
  I look forward to a full debate and amendment process. I do wish to 
add--and I know Senator Daschle is thinking it right now--this should 
not take place over weeks, as we experienced with the energy bill. We 
have some important issues, some tough issues, but once we see if we 
can come to agreement on two or three of these issues or get votes on a 
couple of these issues, we should be able to move it forward in an 
expeditious way.
  It did not work on the energy bill, but I do think this week, and 
hopefully by the end of next week, we will have an agreement on which 
we can vote. It is worth the effort, and I am prepared to put a lot of 
time into it.
  I thank Senator Daschle for agreeing to lay this legislation down so 
we can take a look at it. We will continue working together tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first, I compliment and thank the 
distinguished Republican leader for the cooperative effort he has put 
forth to get to this point. We have talked on many occasions over the 
last several days, and the spirit with which he has discussed the 
importance of this legislation, as well as the importance of a good 
debate, is exactly the one I hold as well.
  I encourage Senators to offer amendments, but let me also say, as the 
Senator alluded, we will be able to determine whether this is good 
faith or not, whether we are just delaying for the sake of delaying; 
that will not be something we can tolerate. But we certainly encourage 
a good and vigorous debate with ample opportunity to offer amendments. 
There is a difference between simply delaying for delaying sake and 
amendments for the sake of changing, improving, or in some way altering 
the legislation as it has been introduced.
  Again, we will work with all of our colleagues to accommodate that 
and look forward to the debate beginning tonight and again tomorrow 
morning. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                Amendment No. 3387 To Amendment No. 3386

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 3387 to amendment 
     No. 3386.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, 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:

     SEC. ____. SECRET TRIBUNALS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement (``NAFTA'') allows foreign investors to file claims 
     against signatory countries that directly or indirectly 
     nationalize or expropriate an investment, or take measures 
     ``tantamount to nationalization or expropriation'' of such an 
     investment.
       (2) Foreign investors have filed several claims against the 
     United States, arguing that regulatory activity has been 
     ``tantamount to nationalization or expropriation''. Most 
     notably, a Canadian chemical company claimed $970,000,000 in 
     damages allegedly resulting from a California State 
     regulation banning the use of a gasoline additive produced by 
     that company.
       (3) A claim under Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA is 
     adjudicated by a three-member panel, whose deliberations are 
     largely secret.
       (4) While it may be necessary to protect the 
     confidentiality of business sensitive information, the 
     general lack of transparency of these proceedings has been 
     excessive.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this amendment is to ensure 
     that the proceedings of the NAFTA investor protection 
     tribunals are as transparent as possible, consistent with the 
     need to protect the confidentiality of business sensitive 
     information.
       (c) Chapter 11 of NAFTA.--The President shall negotiate 
     with Canada and Mexico an amendment to Chapter Eleven of the 
     NAFTA to ensure the fullest transparency possible with 
     respect to the dispute settlement mechanism in that Chapter, 
     consistent with the need to protect information that is 
     classified or confidential, by--

[[Page S3616]]

       (1) ensuring that all requests for dispute settlement under 
     Chapter Eleven are promptly made public;
       (2) ensuring that with respect to Chapter Eleven--
       (A) all proceedings, submissions, findings, and decisions 
     are promptly made public; and
       (B) all hearings are open to the public; and
       (3) establishing a mechanism under that Chapter for 
     acceptance of amicus curiae submissions from businesses, 
     unions, and nongovernmental organizations.
       (d) Certification Requirements.--Within one year of the 
     enactment of this Act, the U.S. Trade Representative shall 
     certify to Congress that the President has fulfilled the 
     requirements set forth in subsection (c).

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I understand the rather lengthy 
managers' amendment has just been offered. I do not know how many pages 
it is, but obviously we will have to study it. It is a substantial 
amendment.
  I offer my amendment in the first degree to the managers' amendment 
that was just offered. I will describe it briefly. I understand there 
are no further votes today, and perhaps I will discuss it briefly and 
then discuss it some in the morning. I hope perhaps tomorrow we may 
have a vote on it. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and 
Senator Craig from Idaho.
  The amendment is relatively simple. This amendment deals with Chapter 
11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under Chapter 11 of 
NAFTA, secret multinational tribunals consider claims by private 
investors against member countries, including claims by foreign 
investors against the U.S. Government. This amendment would end the 
undemocratic and unfair secrecy in these tribunals.
  My amendment directs the President to negotiate with Canada and 
Mexico an amendment to NAFTA that would require transparency in these 
tribunals. The U.S. Trade Representative under this amendment is to 
certify to Congress that this has been done within 12 months of the 
enactment.
  Even the supporters of fast track have recognized that secrecy is not 
appropriate, and yet we have these tribunals that are secret. No one is 
allowed to understand their work; no one can be a part of their 
discussions; no one understands the deliberations. The door is locked. 
Three members are appointed to a tribunal. They meet in secret, make 
judgments in secret, make decisions in secret, and then we are told the 
result. That is not the way for this country to proceed with respect to 
dispute resolutions to trade agreements.
  U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick has recognized this secrecy is a 
problem, and he met with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada on 
this issue. In fact, they agreed there needed to be more openness, and 
they announced that July 31 of last year. They said that these 
tribunals will operate as openly as possible.
  But just last month, a NAFTA tribunal refused to open their 
proceedings once again and rejected the guidelines by Ambassador 
Zoellick and his counterparts.
  This amendment will fix a problem that everyone, including the 
administration, acknowledges. It will require transparency. It will 
require an end to the secrecy, an opening up of the process so the 
American people can understand how this democratic process must work.
  We cannot and should not be a party to secret tribunals. We have 
been, but we should not be, and my amendment will remedy that.
  I understand that in the negotiating objectives described in the 
managers' amendment, there is language that would address the secrecy 
of the tribunals going forward for future agreements. I do not know 
that for certain. I am told that is part of the managers' amendment.
  If it is the case, it seems logical to me that we would want to 
extend that to other agreements with which we are now engaged, 
including the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  I might mention again--I do not have all the details--but we have a 
situation in California where California understood that an additive to 
gasoline called MTBE was showing up in drinking water and ground water. 
They discovered that is dangerous to people, and California banned MTBE 
from being added to gasoline in California. A couple of other States 
have taken the same action.

  A Canadian company that manufactures MTBE has filed an action under 
NAFTA and is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars against 
California and our country because we are taking action to protect our 
citizens. They say they have been injured by this and have a right 
under NAFTA to make the claim; then, a tribunal is developed and begins 
to meet and it is totally secret. Its proceedings are totally, 
completely secret. The American public is told: You are not involved; 
you cannot see, you cannot be a part of this; it is none of your 
business.
  Talk about a bizarre set of circumstances for a democracy to enter 
into trade agreements by which we allow someone from another country to 
challenge a State government in our country, just because it is trying 
to protect their citizens from poisons in the drinking water, chemicals 
that are harmful to human health. We end up being sued under a trade 
agreement for damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, just 
for protecting our people; and we are told that this suit will be 
determined by a tribunal that will meet in secret. What is that about? 
Does anybody really think this makes any sense? Can anybody really 
support this? We will have a vote on this and see whether people will.
  This amendment, which is bipartisan--Senator Craig and I are offering 
it--is a simple one. It says we are a party to trade agreements--we 
understand that--but we cannot and should not be a party to a trade 
agreement by which investor dispute tribunals will be conducted in 
secret. They have been in the past, they should not ever be again, and 
our amendment says, stop it, this country cannot be a part of that.
  I will speak at greater length about the amendment and describe in 
some more detail the MTBE saga, which I think is symbolic of the 
egregious actions of tribunals meeting in secrecy. I will not do that 
this evening. I will do that in the morning.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator offering this amendment at this 
time. Based on what the majority leader just said, that he wanted, in 
effect, quality amendments, I think he has one here. This is the type 
of amendment people should look forward to, I hope.
  Of what I know about the Senator's amendment--and I have spoken with 
him off the floor--it is going to be a tough amendment to vote against. 
How can anybody be in favor of secret meetings when they deal with some 
of the most important issues in this country and, in fact, our 
relations with other countries? I do not think we should be doing that 
in secret. That is what the Senator is saying; is that not true?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is the case. This is an amendment I am offering, 
along with my colleague Senator Craig from Idaho. It is bipartisan. And 
whether you are in favor of fast track or opposed to it, you should be 
opposed to tribunals meeting in secret.
  I think we will find agreement between both supporters and opponents 
of fast track that we ought not be a party to tribunals that are 
secret, that are shielded from the view of the American people. I am 
going to use the MTBE case tomorrow morning to graphically demonstrate 
how absurd it is that we could be sued under a trade law for taking 
action, or we can have action taken against us for our deciding we want 
to protect the health of the American people and that the dispute will 
be resolved behind a cloak of secrecy. That is not what this country 
should be involved in.
  It is at this point because that is the way NAFTA works, but we can 
change it. This Congress can change it, and I hope tomorrow by voting 
for this amendment this Congress will change it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will speak on the bill, but I first 
want to make a comment not for or against the amendment of the Senator 
from North Dakota but to put it in context. The reason I cannot make a 
comment for or against the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota 
is at this point I have not read it or studied it. I do think he has 
brought up an issue of transparency, and it deals with NAFTA. On all 
agreements, particularly WTO agreements, there has been

[[Page S3617]]

a big concern about the process not being transparent enough.
  Senator Baucus and I, in the Finance Committee, have spoken about the 
necessity for doing this in several different venues. We have spoken 
with people from the European Community about it. We believe the 
process of the WTO, for instance, should be very much more transparent 
than it has been in the past. So the issue of transparency is one that 
does fall on acceptable ears in a very general sense, not necessarily 
related to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota but in a very 
general sense with most of us in the Congress of the United States. 
Where we have run into most of the opposition is from the European 
Community.
  We have also had a lot of the developing nations of the world that 
are members of the World Trade Organization be highly in favor of more 
transparency.
  The issue of transparency was the basis for a lot of the protests in 
Seattle, and since then there has been a real determined look at the 
process. A lot of us have come to the conclusion that whatever we can 
do to promote more transparency we should.
  Speaking now on the bill and where we are at this point, particularly 
now that we do have a substitute amendment before us laid down by the 
Senate majority leader, I am encouraged on the one hand, dismayed on 
the other, by the action taken today in the laying down of this 
amendment.

  I am encouraged because, after months of delays, we are moving 
forward on trade promotion authority. The House passed TPA last year. 
Unfortunately, TPA has languished much too long in the Senate. So I 
definitely am glad we are moving forward. In a minute I will talk about 
being dismayed.
  In regard to moving forward, the fact is, while we were sitting on 
the sidelines for the last 5 or 6 years that our President has not had 
trade promotion authority, the United States is a party to only 3 
agreements out of some 130 free trade agreements negotiated worldwide. 
That means other countries get better access to foreign markets than we 
do. That is unfair.
  Let me give some examples. Today, the average U.S. tariff is 4.8 
percent. In contrast, Brazil's tariff averages 14.6 percent; Thailand, 
45.6 percent. That is much too high. We need to correct the imbalance, 
and the best way to do that is by providing our President with the 
tools he needs to tear down these barriers to our exports. The most 
important tool we have to accomplish that is through trade promotion 
authority.
  Let me go through those figures once more to emphasize the point. The 
United States has an average tariff of 4.8 percent. We have Brazil much 
higher at 14.6 percent and Thailand at 45.6 percent. So if anybody in 
this body ever wonders whether it is a benefit to the United States to 
be involved in regimes of negotiating down barriers to trade, and 
particularly tariffs, they ought to understand that for the United 
States, at 4.8 percent compared to 14.6 percent, and 45 percent for 
Thailand, they must be brought down, even if they are not brought down 
to where we are. That is a win-win situation for the American worker, 
as jobs that are created in international trade are good jobs that pay 
15 percent above the national average. So the President then needs 
trade promotion authority to represent the interests of American 
workers in international trade negotiations.
  He has not been there for 127 of the agreements reached in the last 
few years. He has not been there because Congress has not given him the 
authority to be there. So I am committed to helping the President get 
these tools.
  Without trade agreements, the United States will lose its role as 
world leader in setting global trade policies and standards. That means 
other nations, in no way committed to U.S. interests, will set the 
world's future trading rules. They will do it, and it is going to 
affect us. I can guarantee those nations are not looking out for the 
best interests of our workers.
  TPA will help us and our President get back into the game where we 
were practically full time from 1947 to 1994. It has only been since 
1994 that the President has not had this authority. This is why I am 
glad we have this bill before us.
  Now I wish to state why I am dismayed about the process thus far, and 
that is the insistence on linking trade promotion authority, which has 
strong bipartisan support as per the 18-to-3 vote out of the Senate 
Finance Committee, but they want to link it to the controversial 
expansion of trade adjustment assistance. I am dismayed not because 
there is a linkage between trade promotion authority and trade 
adjustment assistance because these two bills have often been linked in 
the past; I am dismayed that trade adjustment assistance is being 
brought up in a partisan way.
  Ever since President Kennedy first designed the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program in the early 1960s, the program has garnered strong 
bipartisan support. That is the way it has been. That is the way it 
should be this year. Unfortunately, the way in which this bill is being 
brought forward falls far short of that bipartisanship.
  As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is the 
committee responsible for drafting both trade promotion authority 
legislation and trade adjustment assistance, perhaps I can shed some 
light on how we got to where we are today.
  First, Chairman Max Baucus and I worked for months crafting a 
bipartisan trade promotion bill, and we did it in a very good way or it 
would not have gotten a 18-to-3 vote. The end result was supported by 
the White House, by Majority Leader Tom Daschle because he is a member 
of the committee, by Republican Minority Leader Trent Lott because he 
is also a member of the committee, and it sailed through the Finance 
Committee.
  In contrast to trade promotion authority, we have this other bill, S. 
1209, the trade adjustment assistance bill, that I talked about. It was 
not a product of the committee process or bipartisan compromise. In 
fact, days before the bill was brought before the Finance Committee, 
Democrats inserted a provision and legislation requiring large 
Government subsidies for company-based health care coverage for the 
first time in the history of trade adjustment assistance. This new and 
unprecedented provision shattered what would otherwise have been strong 
bipartisan support for trade adjustment assistance.
  At the time, the chairman of the Finance Committee assured Members 
that the health care provision was simply a place hold that would be 
replaced by whatever bipartisan approach results from the debate over 
providing health care to uninsured workers which was then taking place 
in the economic stimulus package.
  As we all know now, a bipartisan consensus could not be achieved and 
ultimately the stimulus bill passed Congress without a health care 
provision. Now the health care fight has moved from stimulus to trade 
promotion authority. Still, no bipartisan consensus. I hope by tomorrow 
morning I can say that there is such a bipartisan consensus. It is a 
shame that to this point there is not. We should be able to do better.
  The trade adjustment assistance bill currently before the Senate also 
risks jeopardizing strong public support that trade adjustment 
assistance has always had because it expands the program too far, 
opening the program to possible abuse. In my view, we need to be sure 
that the scope of the program--and I am talking beyond the health 
provisions suggested--is limited to those people who are truly impacted 
by negative aspects of international trade, we also need to be sure the 
program is fiscally prudent, and we need to be sure the administration 
can actually administer the program we might outline in the bill. If 
the administration cannot so administer, we will only have more worker 
frustration as they try to use the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
  American workers are too important to be reckless. We need to 
maintain confidence in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. We need 
to do that through this legislation, getting this legislation just 
exactly right. This may take a little longer, but it is the right thing 
to do. We can provide expanded and improved trade adjustment assistance 
to America's workers with strong bipartisan support. We can also devise 
ways to provide temporary health insurance assistance for trade 
adjustment assistance workers, even

[[Page S3618]]

though doing so would constitute a fundamental unfairness to the 39 
million other Americans living without health insurance.
  So all my colleagues can hear me, I know we are going to end up with 
health insurance provisions in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. As 
long as that doesn't become a pattern for what this Congress has not 
responsibly done up to this point--and maybe we all share in that 
problem; we have not tackled the problem of all the millions--it is 
probably 39 to 40 million Americans--who do not have health insurance--
it is my view we should tackle the health provision vis-a-vis trade 
adjustment assistance workers with a pool of uninsured workers in 
America and not do it piecemeal. I am not going to prevail in that 
point of view. Or if I prevail in that point of view, we will not have 
trade promotion authority. So I am giving on it.
  But I think it is wrong because it detracts, that we don't think 40 
million uninsured Americans is a problem. We have to deal with that. 
The President of the United States recognizes that. He has $81 billion 
in his budget for programs for the 42 million uninsured Americans.
  How we achieve these goals is a debate I and my Republican colleagues 
are ready and willing to undertake. We are starting now with the Senate 
majority leader laying down this trade adjustment assistance bill and 
other items related to trade promotion authority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, with respect to the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota, I have an important article I 
will include in the Record. However, I respond to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, pointing out the trade adjustment assistance and the 
emphasis on it. At least we now are admitting that in this proceeding 
we are not going to win jobs, we are going to lose jobs. In every one 
of these trade debates, that is the first thing they say: This is so 
fine, it will create jobs--NAFTA was to create 200,000 jobs; we have 
lost some 670,000 textile jobs alone since that time.
  The appeal now for this fast track and this trade agreement is: We 
will put you on welfare reform. We will let you have health costs. We 
will have certain benefits.
  I am looking for jobs for my people. I am not looking for welfare 
reform. At least they acknowledge that. That is the big debate going on 
for the past week. We were ready this morning, and they were not. After 
we had lost that motion to proceed, they had won, so we were ready to 
proceed. However, they had not gotten together the welfare reform 
clause for lost jobs.
  Having observed that, Madam President, let me refer to Senator 
Dorgan's amendment with respect to an article that appeared in Business 
Week, dated April 1, on page 76. It is entitled ``The Highest Court 
You've Never Heard Of.'' I ask unanimous consent this article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Business Week, Apr. 1, 2002]

                The Highest Court You've Never Heard Of

                          (By Paul Magnussun)

       When a Mississippi jury slapped a $500 million judgment on 
     Loewen Group, a Canadian funeral-home chain, in 1995 for 
     breaching a contract with a hometown rival, the company 
     quickly settled the case for $129 million but then decided to 
     appeal. But instead of going to a U.S. court, the Canadians 
     took their case to an obscure three-judge panel that stands 
     distinctly apart from the U.S. legal system. And that panel's 
     decision cannot be appealed.
       Thanks to some fine print in the 1994 North American Free 
     Trade Agreement, the case of Loewen Group vs. the U.S. is 
     just one of two dozen wending their way through a little-
     known and highly secretive process. The panels, using 
     arbitration procedures established by the World Bank, were 
     supposed to ensure that governments in the U.S., Mexico, and 
     Canada would pay compensation to any foreign investor whose 
     property they might seize. U.S. business groups originally 
     demanded the investor-protection mechanism, noting that the 
     Mexican government had a history of nationalizing its oil, 
     electricity, and banking industries, including many U.S. 
     assets.
       But even some of NAFTA's strongest supporters say that 
     clever and creative lawyers in all three countries and 
     rapidly expanding the anti-expropriation clause in 
     unanticipated ways. ``The question in a lot of these pending 
     cases is, will the panels produce a pattern of decisions that 
     the negotiators never envisioned?'' says Charles E. Roh Jr., 
     deputy chief U.S. negotiator for NAFTA, now a partner at 
     Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLC. Some of the early indications, he 
     says, ``are troubling.''
       In one case, a NAFTA panel issued an interpretation of the 
     Mexican Constitution, an authority the NAFTA negotiators 
     hadn't intended to give the panel. In the dispute, a 
     California waste disposal company, Metalclad Corp., was 
     awarded $16.7 million by a NAFTA tribunal after the governor 
     of the state of San Luis Potosi and a town council refused 
     the company a permit to open a toxic waste site. The company 
     had asked for $90 million in damages, insisting that the 
     state and local governments had overstepped their authority.
       The majority of the cases are yet to be decided, but the 
     NAFTA panels are controversial nonetheless. For one thing, 
     they are already pitting environmentalists and federal, 
     state, and local government regulators in all three countries 
     against multinationals. The basic disagreement: Business 
     groups want to include NAFTA's strongest investor-protection 
     provisions in all future free-trade agreements, while many 
     environmentalists would like to scrap the entire procedure as 
     an impediment to government regulatory action. The cases are 
     also complicating efforts to negotiate free-trade agreements 
     with Chile and the hemispheric, 34-nation Free Trade Area of 
     the Americas.
       Washington's problem: While such panels may favor U.S. 
     businesses abroad, foreign plaintiffs would enjoy the same 
     such privileges in the U.S. And that could end up giving them 
     protections against regulations far beyond those domestic 
     companies enjoy in their own courts. What's more, states and 
     municipalities have also warned that their ability to govern 
     is being compromised by ``a new set of foreign investor 
     rights.''
       In some cases, the NAFTA suits seek damages for government 
     decisions that are clearly legal but can be questioned under 
     vague notions of international law. For example, a Canadian 
     chemical company, Methanex Corp., bypassed U.S. courts to 
     challenge California's ban on a health-threatening gasoline 
     additive, MTBE, that has been polluting municipal wells and 
     reservoirs. In its $970 million claim, the Canadian company 
     said California Governor Gray Davis had been influenced in 
     his decision by a $150,000 campaign contribution from U.S.-
     based Archer Daniels Midland Co., the maker of a rival 
     gasoline additive. The campaign contribution was legal, but 
     Methanex' lawyers argued that the Davis decision was 
     ``palpably unfair and inequitable'' because of ADM's 
     influence. Such an argument wouldn't likely work in a U.S. 
     court.
       No laws can be overturned by the panel, but the cost of 
     defending against a NAFTA lawsuit may run so high that it 
     could still deter agencies from imposing strict regulations 
     on foreign companies, critics charge. They point to a 
     decision by Canada not to restrict cigarette marketing after 
     Ottawa was threatened with a NAFTA case by U.S. tobacco 
     companies. In another potentially intimidating move, United 
     Parcel Service Inc. is seeking $160 million in damages from 
     Canada, arguing that the state-owned Canadian postal system, 
     Canada Post, maintains a monopoly on first-class mail and 
     delivers parcels with private Canadian partners.
       But right now, the Loewen case is the one in the spotlight. 
     The Mississippi trial was so theatrical that Warner Bros. 
     Inc. and film director Ron Howard have acquired the movie 
     rights, according to attorneys in the case. Canadian funeral 
     chain founder Ray Loewen was vilified as a foreigner, a 
     ``gouger of grieving families,'' an owner of a large yacht, a 
     racist, a customer of foreign banks, and greedy besides, 
     according to the transcript. Yet the State Supreme Court 
     refused to waive the appeal bond, which had been set at $625 
     million--to be posted in 10 days. (The largest previous 
     verdict in the state had been $18 million.) Loewen filed for 
     bankruptcy protection in 1999 but is hopeful that the 
     imminent NAFTA ruling will revive the company.
       Although many of the current cases raise questions, 
     business groups insist that NAFTA-like panels are needed in 
     all trade deals because so many developing nations have poor 
     judicial systems. But they allow that the process may still 
     need some tweaking. ``Of course, if I look at the filed cases 
     so far, I could write a pretty scary story,'' says Scott 
     Miller, a Washington lobbyist for Procter & Gamble Co. And 
     Eric Biehl, a former top Commerce Dept. official, who 
     supports NAFTA, wonders, ``how does some mechanism on a trade 
     agreement that no one ever thought much about suddenly get 
     used to open up a whole new appellate process around the U.S. 
     judicial system?'' That's a question a lot more people may 
     soon be asking.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. It reads: Do NAFTA judges have too much authority?
  Let me read:

       When a Mississippi jury slapped a $500 million judgment on 
     Loewen Group, a Canadian funeral-home chain, in 1995 for 
     breaching a contract with a hometown rival, the company 
     quickly settled a case for $129 million but then decided to 
     appeal. But instead of going to a U.S. court, the Canadians 
     took their case to an obscure three-judge panel that stands 
     distinctly apart from the U.S. legal system. And that panel's 
     decision cannot be appealed.

[[Page S3619]]

       Thanks to some fine print in the 1994 North American Free 
     Trade Agreement, the case of Loewen Group vs. U.S. is just 
     one of two dozen wending their way through a little-known and 
     highly secretive process.

  Let me read that sentence one more time. That is the reason we 
opposed fast track. We will have a time agreement, 2 hours a side, or 4 
hours, or debate it this afternoon. You never get the obscure addendum 
and other things agreed to. They don't tell you about them.

       Thanks to some fine print in the 1994 North American Free 
     Trade Agreement, the case of Loewen Group vs. U.S. is just 
     one of two dozen winding their way through a little-known 
     highly secretive process. The panels, using arbitration 
     procedures established by the World Bank, were supposed to 
     ensure the governments in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada would 
     pay compensation to any foreign investor whose property they 
     might seize. U.S. business groups originally demanded the 
     investor-protection mechanism, noting that the Mexican 
     government had a history of nationalizing its oil, 
     electricity, and banking industries, including many U.S. 
     assets.
       But even some of NAFTA's strongest supporters say the 
     clever and creative lawyers in all 3 countries are rapidly 
     expanding the anti-expropriation clause in unanticipated 
     ways. ``The question in a lot of these pending cases is, will 
     the panels produce a pattern of decisions that the 
     negotiators never envisioned?'' says Charles E. Roh Jr, 
     deputy chief U.S. negotiator for NAFTA, now a partner at 
     Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLC. Some of the early indications, 
     he says, ``are troubling.''

  But there are some examples here. There is not only the particular 
funeral home case, but:

       UPS claims that the Canadian post, the state-owned postal 
     system, uses its monopoly on letter mail to gain unfair 
     advantages in parcel deliveries.

  In the matter of the Canadian manufacturer, Methanex, versus the 
United States:

       The Canadian manufacturer of a gasoline additive sued after 
     California found the health-threatening chemical had 
     contaminated water, and banned its use.

  So after the California authorities have the hearings and everything 
else, they find out it is contaminative. As a result, they ban the use. 
No, you take that up to the secret panel of NAFTA judges, who meet in 
secret, decide in secret, and if you can get a fix--like you can get 
the fix of the vote around here--what happens is the California 
proceeding, totally in the open, is overturned. The legal process is 
totally frustrated.
  I will read one more example. Those who are interested can follow the 
particular article, Metalclad v. Mexico:

       U.S. company sued after it obtains permits from the Mexican 
     federal government for a waste disposal site. Then localities 
     denied a permit to operate.

  They said that was taking away their particular business. You can go 
on and on, but it is a two-way street. Lawyers on both sides of the 
border are using this particular secretive measure.

       Although many of the current cases raise questions, 
     business groups insist that NAFTA-like panels are needed in 
     all trade deals because so many developing nations have poor 
     judicial systems. But they allow that the process may still 
     need some tweaking. ``Of course, if I look at the filed cases 
     so far, I could write a pretty scary story,'' says Scott 
     Miller, a Washington lobbyist for Procter & Gamble Co. and 
     Eric Biehl, a former top Commerce Dept. official, wonders 
     ``how does some mechanism on a trade agreement that no one 
     ever thought much about suddenly get used to open up a whole 
     new appellate process around the U.S. judicial system?'' 
     That's a question a lot more people may soon be asking.

  The distinguished Senator from North Dakota asked the question. That 
is what this amendment does. It goes to the heart of that secretive 
process, trying to get transparency. I think there should be a greater 
enforcement provision in this particular amendment. Maybe we can have 
the amendment itself amended.
  Be that as it may, this ought to receive 100 bipartisan votes in the 
Senate against the secret process of the NAFTA panels that no one ever 
heard of. ``The Highest Court You've Never Heard Of,'' says Business 
Week.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2439 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam 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. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________