[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4308-S4326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3408

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S4309]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as soon as we have someone here from the 
other side, I will move to table the amendment now pending. We have had 
a good debate. The debate was very constructive all morning. It is time 
to test the strength of the second-degree amendment and find out what 
we are going to do.
  As we proceed through this trade legislation, we should have more 
debates such as we had this morning. We should vote as soon as we have 
had debate. Of course, a motion to table can be offered at any time. It 
is high time we did this on this amendment.
  I was talking to some Democratic Senators this morning. Between the 
two Senators they have six or seven amendments. So there is a lot that 
needs to be done on this legislation. If someone does not have an 
opportunity to speak on one amendment, they can certainly do it on the 
other.
  I hope we can continue to move this legislation. I know Senator 
Dayton and Senator Craig have waited for days on offering their 
amendment.
  I say to my friend from Minnesota, I appreciate very much his 
patience in waiting to get to a point to test the strength of what is 
happening.
  I have been told that the Dayton-Craig amendment has at least 60 
votes in favor of it. I certainly think we should find out if that is 
the case. There have been some who have been trying to prevent Senators 
Dayton and Craig from having a vote on their amendment. I suggest that 
is not the way we should do things. Something this complex and this 
important we should move as quickly as possible.
  I therefore move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GRAMM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I renew my request to table the amendment.
  I withhold that request.
  Madam President, I ask for the attention of my friend from Iowa. Is 
it the Senator's intention to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.


                      Amendment No. 3409 Withdrawn

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3408

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to table the Dayton amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
3408. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Chafee
     Cochran
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss U.S. trade 
remedy laws--antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safeguard laws.
  Senators Dayton and Craig have offered an amendment on this important 
issue. I want to say a few words about our trade laws. While much of 
this year's debate over fast track has centered around labor and 
environment, there has been less talk about the equally important issue 
of U.S. trade laws--specifically, how we will ensure that these laws 
are not weakened in future trade negotiations. This is not an academic 
issue. In Doha last November, our trade negotiators put U.S. trade laws 
on the negotiating table. I believe that was a mistake. And I want to 
make it clear now: This Senate and this Congress will not tolerate 
weakening changes to our trade laws.
  It is a grave mistake to suggest that the United States must weaken 
its trade laws to be a participant in future trade negotiations. There 
is virtually no political support for such a position. The last tabling 
motion showed that. There were 61 Senators who voted not to table the 
underlying amendment. This point was made clear in the letter sent to 
the President last year by nearly two-thirds of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      May 7, 2001.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to state our strong 
     opposition to any international trade agreement that would 
     weaken U.S. trade laws.
       Key U.S. trade laws, including antidumping law, 
     countervailing duty law, Section 201, and Section 301, are a 
     critical element of U.S. trade policy. A wide range of 
     agricultural and industrial sectors has successfully employed 
     these statutes to address trade problems. Unfortunately, 
     experience suggests that many other industries are likely to 
     have occasion to rely upon them in future years.
       Each of these laws is fully consistent with U.S. 
     obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and 
     other trade agreements. Moreover, these laws actually promote 
     free trade by countering practices that both distort trade 
     and are condemned by international trading rules.
       U.S. trade laws provide American workers and industries the 
     guarantee that, if the United States pursues trade 
     liberalization, it will also protect them against unfair 
     foreign trade practices and allow time for them to address 
     serious import surges. They are part of a political bargain 
     struck with Congress and the American people under which the 
     United States has pursued market opening trade agreements in 
     the past.
       Congress has made clear its position on this matter. In 
     draft fast track legislation considered in 1997, both Houses 
     of Congress have included strong provisions directing trade 
     negotiators not to weaken U.S. trade laws. Congress has 
     restated this position in resolutions, letters, and through 
     other means.
       Unfortunately, some of our trading partners, many of whom 
     maintain serious unfair trade practices, continue to seek to 
     weaken these laws. This may simply be posturing by those who 
     oppose further market opening, but--whatever the motive--the 
     United States should no longer use its trade laws as 
     bargaining chips in trade negotiations nor

[[Page S4310]]

     agree to any provision that weaken or undermine U.S. trade 
     laws.
       We look forward to your response.
           Sincerely,
         Baucus, DeWine, Specter, Rockefeller, Kerry, Byrd, 
           Hollings, Conrad, Voinovich, Snowe, Bingaman, Collins, 
           Santorum, Graham, Thomas, Durbin, Torricelli, Enzi, 
           Murray, Dorgan, Akaka, Inouye, Landrieu, Boxer, Breaux, 
           Craig, Helms, Edwards, Sarbanes, Lincoln, Johnson, 
           Dayton, Mikulski, Lott, Daschle, Bayh, Dodd, Wellstone, 
           McConnell, Sessions, Kennedy, Clinton, Thurmond, 
           Schumer, Bunning, Carnahan, Cleland, Wyden, Levin, 
           Crapo, Feinstein, Cantwell, Burns, Stabenow, Carper, 
           Miller, Smith of New Hampshire, Smith of Oregon, Reid, 
           Harkin, Shelby, Lieberman.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Our trading partners should also understand this point. 
There are many countries that want to weaken U.S. trade laws. Why? 
Because they want to be able, if you will, to dump subsidized 
products--ship products that violate the basic principles of WTO--
within the United States.
  It is very difficult for us to protect ourselves if we don't have our 
antidumping and countervailing duty and section 201 trade laws.
  I must say almost every country in the world, and certainly many in 
South America, are eager to negotiate free trade agreements with the 
United States. There are many South American countries that want to do 
so. Unfortunately, a thorn in our side and a thorn in the side of the 
countries in our joint effort to try to reach agreement on FTAA, for 
example, I say very respectfully, is the country of Brazil.
  I think it is important to step back and ask why countries such as 
Brazil want us to weaken our trade laws. The answer, of course is 
pretty simple: their companies and their workers will benefit--at the 
expense of ours.
  In the last couple of years, there has been considerable debate 
regarding the use of trade laws in the context of the steel import 
crisis. Last year, the administration and the Senate Finance Committee 
worked together to initiate a ``section 201'' investigation, which 
allows relief where an industry has been seriously injured by imports. 
The case of steel is well known--international overcapacity and unfair 
trade practices have been the norm for decades. But unfair trade 
practices are not limited to the steel industry. Foreign governments 
have sought to undercut other strategic U.S. industries--including 
semiconductors, consumer electronics, and supercomputers.
  That last point is important--so I want to emphasize it again. 
Foreign governments have sought to harm American companies and workers. 
Opponents of dumping laws often suggest that if a foreign company wants 
to sell us a product cheaply we, should take advantage of that. After 
all isn't that what, competition is all about? But that view is far too 
simplistic. Companies can succeed in dumping over an extended period of 
time only if supported by government policies--trade barriers, 
subsidies, lax enforcement of their own antitrust laws.
  Profits gained in protected foreign markets allow foreign companies 
to splash prices in the United States in order to gain market share. 
Indeed, efficient American mills must compete with foreign mills that 
produce steel regardless of need. Foreign steel mills often act as 
little more than subsidized work programs.
  I might digress slightly. The same is true with subsidized lumber in 
Canada. They are tantamount to subsidized work programs and subsidized 
timber production in the lumber industry to such a great degree.
  In 1999, for example, foreign overcapacity was more than two times as 
great as the total annual steel consumption in the United States.
  With other export markets largely closed, there is an overwhelming 
incentive to send underpriced steel to the open U.S. market. Let me 
repeat that point. Other countries tend to close their markets to 
companies and countries that dump steel or subsidize steel production. 
So what happens? That steel tends to be diverted to the United States 
because we, by comparison, have such an open market compared with other 
countries that otherwise import steel.
  So without fair trade laws, investment dollars would simply not flow 
to American companies. For example, why would anybody invest in a U.S. 
company, even a highly efficient one, that could so easily be undercut 
by unfair foreign competition?
  So it is not only a matter of workers, employees getting jobs in the 
United States, but it is also foreign investment and domestic 
investment in American companies in the United States.
  A smart investor would invest in a company where its government 
protected its market share.
  Still, the point is argued, why not just allow consumers to take 
advantage of cheap products? It certainly is true there may be a short-
term advantage for consumers and consuming industries. But over the 
long term, we risk gutting our manufacturing base and gutting the 
technological edge of American companies.
  Just think about it a second. If other countries dump, how can we 
invest in the United States to gain and maintain a technological edge?
  For any consuming industry complaining about the use of our trade 
laws in the steel industry, just ask yourself what their reaction would 
be to foreign governments targeting their industry.
  But beyond economic rationale, we risk losing the political support 
for trade. Trade laws are part of the political bargain. If free trade 
is not perceived as fair, Americans will not support it. Why would 
Americans support free trade if the perception is that it exposes them 
to foreign governments' unfair trade practices?
  Consider also the consequences if we do not have effective trade 
laws. Trade laws ensure uniform treatment. In bad economic times, there 
will always be calls to take action against imports. Without consistent 
and transparent trade laws, those calls will come for general trade 
barriers against imports. The internationally negotiated trade laws we 
currently follow seek to provide an objective set of criteria. I might 
add, our trade laws are totally WTO consistent, a point some critics 
forget to mention.
  Some have also asked whether we really need to worry about our laws 
being weakened in international negotiations. Recent history 
demonstrates why we should be concerned.
  I might say, NAFTA's dispute resolution procedures under chapter 19 
have significantly undermined our enforcement of U.S. trade laws. Both 
the GATT Tokyo Round and the Uruguay Round weakened our antidumping and 
safeguard rules; that is, it happens, it is not just theory. It is 
happening. And our laws continue to be attacked and weakened by dispute 
panels exceeding their authority.
  Some have suggested we use negotiations as an opportunity to address 
due process and transparency concerns in the application of other 
countries' trade laws. But remember that fast track is only used to 
change U.S. laws. If we are only looking at the laws of foreign 
governments, we can resolve those differences outside of the U.S. 
implementing legislation.

  As for difficulties encountered by U.S. exporters facing foreign 
countries' trade remedy actions, those are problems of compliance with 
the existing WTO rules, not problems requiring us to revisit the rules 
themselves.
  Let me now turn to the Senate bill. I want to make sure my colleagues 
appreciate the strong provisions protecting U.S. trade laws.
  First, as was the case in the House legislation, our bill provides 
that the President must not undercut U.S. trade laws and should also 
seek to put an end to the foreign practices that make trade laws 
necessary in the first place. Section 2102(c)(9) of the bill states, 
first, that the President shall:

       (A) preserve the ability of the United States to enforce 
     rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping, 
     countervailing duty, and safeguard laws, and avoid agreements 
     that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping and 
     subsidies, or that lessen the effectiveness of domestic and 
     international safeguard provisions. . . .

  Pretty strong stuff.
  Second, the bill states the President shall--I underline the word 
``shall'':

       (B) address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market access barriers.

  In addition, the Senate bill makes important additions to the House 
bill.
  Under this legislation, the Secretary of Commerce must form a 
strategy to

[[Page S4311]]

seek improved adherence to WTO dispute settlement panels to the 
standards of review contained in the WTO agreements or lose fast-track 
procedures.
  In findings, the legislation identifies particular concerns regarding 
recent WTO decisions affecting U.S. trade laws.
  The Senate bill also requires that the chairmen and the ranking 
members of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to separately 
determine whether any changes to U.S. trade laws are consistent with 
the negotiated objective of not weakening U.S. trade laws.
  Another protection: The President must notify the Finance and Ways 
and Means Committees of any proposed changes to U.S. trade laws; and, 
following a report by the chairmen and ranking members, the President 
must separately explain how proposed changes are consistent with the 
negotiating objectives established in the fast-track legislation.
  When it comes to protecting U.S. trade laws, I believe the Senate 
bill is a strong bill. But let me end by emphasizing the importance of 
these laws.
  Why do our trade agreements basically work? They work only because 
there is respect for the agreements themselves, and for the enforcement 
of those agreements. But how long will Americans support new 
negotiations or existing agreements if they see foreign governments 
taking advantage of us?
  I believe the language in this fast-track bill makes it very clear 
that Congress will not tolerate weakening changes to U.S. trade laws. 
And I--and the great majority of my colleagues--will continue to pursue 
this issue as we move forward in future trade negotiations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to talk about trade promotion 
authority. I want to talk a little bit about the history of how we came 
to be here. I want to talk about why this issue is so critically 
important. I want to talk about the Craig amendment. And I want to talk 
about how we are reaching a point where we are beginning to endanger 
trade promotion authority altogether.
  This is a lot to talk about, and I know there are a lot of other 
people who want to speak, so let me begin. And let me start at a 
logical point: 1934.
  Imagine that it is 1934 in America. One out of every three Americans 
is out of work. The gross domestic product of the country has declined 
by almost a third. We have adopted a series of protective tariffs 
including the onerous Smoot-Hawley tariffs initiated by Republicans and 
supported by Democrats. And in the process, we not only have a 
depression in our own country, but we, by starting a trade war 
worldwide, have turned the global recession of 1929 and 1930 into a 
global depression.
  And in that humbling moment of 1934, where everything we did related 
to trade and the economy was wrong, there was a rare bipartisan 
consensus. It occurred because the country was in so much trouble, and 
because there was a recognition that we had created our own problem. At 
that moment in 1934, Republicans and Democrats got together and passed 
what was called the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. That Act allowed 
the President to negotiate 29 trade agreements between 1934 and 1945. 
We literally were the leader in starting up world trade again.
  As world trade was reignited, as our economy started to grow, and as 
we fought and won World War II, the bipartisan consensus on trade grew. 
We saw that trade is a good thing that promotes jobs, growth, 
opportunity, prosperity, and freedom. The bipartisan consensus expanded 
to the point where in 1948 we adopted the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, known as GATT, and initiated a worldwide effort to try to 
open up global trade.
  Subsequently, from 1947 to 1963, we completed five successful 
negotiating rounds under GATT. But then, in 1962, something happened 
that is highly relevant to the debate we are having today over the 
Dayton amendment. By 1962, the principal impediment to trade in the 
world was not protective tariffs. Instead, the key impediment was non-
tariff measures anti-trade laws adopted by countries that limited the 
ability of trade to flow freely. For example, countries began to adopt 
laws allowing producers within a country to get special protection if 
they were harmed by trade, and allowing countries to subsidize their 
exports if they felt they were losing out in trade.
  By 1962, therefore, President Kennedy recognized it was no longer 
enough to negotiate tariff reductions. We needed to negotiate away all 
the barriers that we and other countries had put up that consisted not 
of tariffs, but of non-tariff trade protections. Therefore, the Kennedy 
Round focused on issues such as countries' use of export subsidies, and 
of anti-dumping laws. When the Kennedy Round of negotiations was 
completed, it addressed not only tariffs, but sought to establish some 
worldwide rules related to countries' use of anti-trade laws.
  But at that point, when presented with the Kennedy Round by the 
Johnson Administration, Congress approved legislation undoing the 
provisions of the Kennedy Round Agreement that related to anti-trade 
items such as export subsidies--the very provisions we are debating 
today in the Dayton amendment. Congress effectively amended the deal. 
The Kennedy Round of negotiations was agreed to by other GATT members 
and became the new foundation for world trade. But because Congress 
basically changed the deal, the United States did not participate in or 
get the full benefits of the Kennedy Round. We had negotiated this 
entire set of agreements with our trading partners. But when we changed 
one critical ingredient, our trading partners said: We are not willing 
to negotiate with the United States and then let Congress strike the 
parts in which the United States made concessions and yet leave the 
parts where we, the United States' trading partners, made our 
concessions.
  When the Kennedy Round went ahead without the United States in 1967, 
so shocked was Congress that in 1974 we created a new process that 
today is known as fast track. And every succeeding President since 
President Ford has had fast-track trade authority. That trade authority 
has allowed the President to go out and negotiate agreements with our 
trading partners. In those agreements we give up some things we don't 
want to give up, and our partners give up some things they don't want 
to give up, but the United States and the group of countries involved 
decide that overall, the trade agreement is in their interest. And that 
was the procedure that we had in place until 1994, when the fast-track 
provisions expired.
  Since then, we have found that few countries in the world are willing 
to negotiate with us, because any trade agreement negotiated could be 
amended in Congress. Obviously, countries are not willing to make 
concessions that bind them when our concessions would not bind us 
should Congress decide to change them.
  As a result, there are some 130 trade agreements worldwide that we in 
the United States are not part of. For example, Europe has negotiated 
an expanded trade agreement with South American nations. We have no 
similar agreement. Mexico has negotiated and successfully completed 
free trade agreements with Central and South American nations. We have 
no such agreements. Canada has negotiated free trade agreements with 
South American nations. We have been unable to have such agreements. 
So today, appliances that could be produced cheaper and better in the 
United States are being sold in Chile today by Canadian manufacturers 
because their manufacturers have an advantage over ours: they have a 
free trade agreement that means lower tariffs. Chilean consumers could 
buy better American appliances cheaper, but without a trade agreement, 
they can't buy them without having to pay a tariff. Canada benefits 
from that trade, and we do not.

  We have come here today to try to set this situation straight. We 
have come here today to try to give the President the authority to 
promote American exports and to engage in trade liberalization around 
the world.
  Without getting into a long harangue about it, let me say that 
Republicans have been asked to pay a tremendous level of tribute to get 
to this point. The President asked the Senate for an up-or-down vote on 
trade promotion authority. That request was denied. Instead, the 
majority has said that to get

[[Page S4312]]

a vote on trade promotion authority, we must add a trade adjustment 
assistance bill to it, and that bill must contain a new provision 
requiring the government to pay 70 percent of the health care costs of 
people who lose their jobs because of trade, even though many Americans 
have no health care benefit when they are working.
  Moreover, we have been asked to agree--and to this point we 
reluctantly have agreed--that if you are a worker whose company is 
affected by trade and is not competitive, you get not only 2 years of 
unemployment and 70 percent of your health care benefit, but you get 
part of your wages paid for by the government. Let's say you lose your 
job in the steel mill but you have always wanted to be a batboy for the 
Pittsburgh Pirates. If you take the lower-paying job as a batboy, we 
will supplement your wages to make up half the difference of what you 
lost in salary from the steel mill wages as compared to the Pittsburgh 
Pirates bat boy wages. Meanwhile, if you lose your job because a 
terrorist destroys the factory you work in, you get 6 months 
unemployment and you get no health care.
  It is fair to say that there are 45 Republican Members of the Senate 
who are adamantly opposed--adamantly opposed--to those provisions. We 
have created two new entitlements that are unfunded and that nobody 
knows what they cost. We are creating the incredible anomaly where we 
will be taxing people who are working and who don't have health 
insurance in order to subsidize 70 percent of the health care costs of 
certain people who are unemployed but had health insurance when they 
worked. They now will be getting a taxpayer subsidy, even though the 
people paying the subsidy don't have health care themselves. And we are 
being asked to sign on to a system where the American Government for 
the first time is going to get into wage guarantees. There is no sense 
beating this old dead horse, but let me say that these are the same 
kinds of deals that Europe is desperately trying to get out of. They 
can't create jobs because they can't cut old jobs because they have to 
pay all these benefits. Yet in this tribute we are having to pay to get 
the trade bill, we are going in the direction that the Europeans are 
actively trying to get out of. We are going in the direction of 
imposing heavy socialistic programs that are going to have a stifling 
effect on the budget.

  And now, in the midst of a bill that already has all these provisions 
that 45 Republicans hate, that will drive up the deficit, that will 
make the economy less competitive, and that create a terrible injustice 
in the system, we now are presented with an amendment before us that 
will literally undo fast-track authority by allowing Congress to change 
the deal.
  Can you imagine if in buying and selling a house, or any other 
commonplace negotiation, you suddenly are told you must pay more than 
you negotiated to pay? Can you imagine how commerce would break down 
when deals can be renegotiated after the negotiations are done?
  The whole purpose of paying this heavy tribute, and adopting all this 
terrible, harmful public policy is to get the positive effect of fast 
track whereby there is an up-or-down vote on accepting the negotiated 
deal. But now in comes the Dayton-Craig amendment that says to the 
President, OK, you can negotiate, you can give, you can take, but when 
the trade bill comes back, if you have negotiated in areas where 
Congress has written laws to hinder trade, then we get to vote on those 
provisions separately. And if you cannot get 51 votes, then those 
provisions are taken out.
  What country in the world is going to be foolish enough to negotiate 
with us when they know there is going to be a separate vote on the 
parts of the agreement that we in the United States like the least? We 
would never negotiate with another country under circumstances where 
their legislative body could take out the parts of the negotiation they 
did not like but leave in the parts we did not like.
  This amendment kills trade promotion authority because it is counter 
to the very thesis that underlies it. What is trade promotion authority 
about if it is not about an up-or-down vote on a trade agreement, 
without amendment? How can a provision which allows part of an 
agreement--the part that is likely to be least popular in the United 
States--to be voted on separately? How can anybody be confused that 
this amendment absolutely kills trade promotion authority?
  As the Dayton-Craig amendment has been debated, people have gotten 
the idea that this amendment has to do only with unfair trade 
practices. But most of this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with 
unfair trade practices. And even where it does, it is obvious on its 
face that if we could negotiate agreements to fix those practices both 
here and in our trading partners' countries, we would want to do it.
  Let me now go through the provisions of law that would be affected by 
the Dayton-Craig amendment.
  First, the Dayton-Craig amendment says that Congress would have the 
right to strike, by majority vote, any provision that would limit 
actions against foreign subsidies such as income or price supports. The 
first law the amendment talks about title VII of the Tariff Act of 
1930, which includes our countervailing duty law. What is that law 
about? That law is about American taxpayers subsidizing American 
producers to compensate for the subsidies that foreign governments are 
giving to their manufacturers and their agricultural producers.

  I ask my colleagues, when we cannot sell our agricultural products in 
Europe because of their subsidies, when we have spent 25 years trying 
to get them to reduce those subsidies, why in the world would we want 
to set forth a rule saying that American negotiators can negotiate 
anything except agricultural subsidies. Why in the world would we ever 
want to ban negotiations in which the Europeans agree to cut their 
subsidies and we agree to cut ours? Yet by taking subsidy disciplines 
off the table, that effectively is what we'd be doing.
  What this amendment really would like to do is allow negotiations 
reducing European and American agricultural subsidies to go forward, 
but once that agreement gets over here, allow Congress to strike the 
provisions reducing American agricultural subsidies. Why in the world 
would the Europeans ever enter into such an agreement? They would never 
enter into such an agreement.
  When 60 cents out of every dollar of farm income in America now is 
coming directly from the Government, when we are paying farmers 
literally millions of dollars to produce products that we end up having 
to dump on the world market, and when we claim we do this because our 
foreign competitors are doing the same thing, why in the world should 
we prevent the President from getting together the major agriculture-
producing countries and saying let's stop cheating, let's get rid of 
these income and price support subsidy programs so we can have freer 
trade in agriculture?
  My point is that this amendment would ban for all practical purposes 
all agreements that have to do with export subsidies. It would ban any 
agreement that has to do with eliminating the unfair trade practice of 
subsidies by us or by our competitors. I want my colleagues to 
understand that when the proponents of this amendment stand up and say 
they simply do not want agreements that undermine our laws protecting 
Americans and American producers, what they are really talking about is 
our ability to negotiate away harmful subsidies. Why in the world 
should we not be negotiating with the Europeans, the Koreans, or the 
Japanese to suggest that we all reduce the amount of subsidies that we 
are paying to dump steel on the world market? Why don't we all agree to 
reduce the subsidies that are resulting in overproduction of 
agricultural products?
  The net result of this provision will not be to protect American 
manufacturers and farmers from losing their subsidies. The result of 
this amendment, if adopted, will be that there will never be another 
trade agreement that has anything to do with reducing export subsidies. 
And of all the nations on Earth, we would be the biggest beneficiary of 
such an agreement. What country in the world can outproduce Iowa in 
agriculture? We could sell billions of dollars of agricultural products 
in Europe if we could negotiate an end to export subsidies. Why should 
we prohibit the President from negotiating them? We ought to be 
encouraging him to negotiate them. But this amendment, despite all the 
rhetoric about

[[Page S4313]]

eliminating our ability to protect our producers from unfair trade, 
protects us right out of being able to eliminate unfair trade.
  The second provision of the Dayton-Craig amendment refers to our 
anti-dumping laws. Now, on its surface, the amendment sounds good. The 
President would not be able to negotiate anything that would prevent 
America from protecting its producers from dumping. In other words, we 
will not be dumped upon. But what does dumping mean?
  First of all, dumping means all these low-price quality items 
Americans can buy for their families at department stores. But forget 
for a moment that American families enjoy a better quality of life from 
low-price imports. Why shouldn't we negotiate an agreement that says 
why should we subsidize products to dump on your market and why should 
you subsidize products to dump on our market when we could get together 
and negotiate an armistice where we both stop dumping?
  When one listens to the rhetoric of supporters of the Dayton-Craig 
amendment, gosh, it sounds appealing. They say, do not eliminate our 
protections against dumping. But when we protect our right to dump and 
our right to protect ourselves against dumping, we effectively 
eliminate our ability to negotiate for a world where we stop dumping by 
everybody. That just does not make sense to me.
  Third, another law covered by the Dayton-Craig amendment is Section 
337, which relates to U.S. patents and copyrights. From listening to 
the rhetoric, you might think the amendment says that anything the 
President might do that weakens American patents and copyrights will 
require a separate vote.
  But who owns all the patents and copyrights in the world? What nation 
in the world has tried to write language protecting patents and 
copyrights into every trade agreement since 1948? The United States of 
America. We are the only country in the world that wants to talk about 
copyrights and patents. Why? Because we own copyrights, and we own 
patents. Why in the world would we want to bar the President from 
holding negotiations in the very areas where the United States will 
benefit the most? If we, who hold the vast majority of the copyrights 
and patents in the world, could negotiate an international agreement on 
respecting copyrights and patents, would we not be the principal 
beneficiary of it?
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield, but let me finish this one 
point.
  How can we get other countries to submit to negotiate on their patent 
and copyright laws if we say that we want you to change your laws but 
we are totally unwilling or unable to negotiate on our laws?
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator raises an excellent point. There are 
negotiations that occur that are in the best interest of the United 
States. Of course, we want to encourage those negotiations to proceed. 
Is the Senator aware there is nothing in the Dayton-Craig amendment 
that would require the Senate to step in on these matters? It simply 
permits the Senate, by a majority of the Members, to do so if, in the 
view of the majority of the Members, what has been negotiated is not in 
the best interest of the United States.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond. The Senator asks whether I am aware that 
the Senate could decide not to strip out this provision. Yes, I am 
aware of that point. But every country with whom we wanted to negotiate 
would realize that Congress nonetheless had the ability to strip 
provisions out. And what country would negotiate changes to its patent 
and copyright laws knowing that whatever change to we agreed to could 
be stripped out?
  Let me use a contracts example. I have only a limited number of 
contracts examples because I am an old schoolteacher and have been a 
politician for a long time, and most of the examples I have are 
consumer examples. But what if we had negotiated a contract that I 
would buy your house, but we wrote into the contract that I had the 
ability to change one part of the contract to suit me but that you did 
not have a right to change a part of the contract to suit you? No party 
to a contract would agree to that.

  I am not talking about changing copyrights and patents unilaterally. 
I am talking about reciprocal commitments. Congress has passed 
resolutions again and again demanding that trade agreements require our 
trading partners to change their copyright and patent laws. It has been 
something we have trumpeted, it is in our interest, and we should be 
promoting it everywhere. But how are we going to get countries to 
change their laws when any changes we agree to can be voted on 
separately? As much as I might want your house, and even if I offer a 
very good price, if I can come back after the contract is signed and 
change the price, you are not going to negotiate with me.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. I agree with the Senator that certainly under the terms 
the Senator describes, my understanding of the way this would work, if 
there were an agreement and the United States, by an act of this body, 
changed the terms of that agreement, the agreement would not be valid; 
the agreement would not apply.
  I certainly agree with the Senator there would be no country that 
would want to sign and agree to something that can be changed 
unilaterally and still apply. My understanding is the entire agreement 
would have to go back to the World Trade Organization, or wherever, to 
be renegotiated.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me make up an example. Let's say we are negotiating 
with the Chinese on a trade agreement, and one of the provisions we 
want is for them to recognize and respect our patents and copyrights on 
everything from books to CDs to DVDs. If you go to China, you will see 
that while you cannot bring them back with you because our Customs will 
not let you, and for good reason, everywhere in China you can buy 
pirated CDs, DVDs, books, and the like. Let's say we could work out an 
agreement with them that required enforcement against patent 
infringement in return for our reducing a patent term on an AIDS 
medicine or on some broad spectrum antibiotic that is important to 
their population's general health. Even if we had to compensate the 
United States patent holder because of the takings provision, there 
might very well be a good deal in the making there. Yet, we could not 
make that deal if a separate vote were allowed.
  My example may be somewhat unrealistic, and I am sure if Ambassador 
Zoellick were here he would have 100 good examples, but I think it 
makes the point.
  Let me go to the next provision of law that would be covered by the 
Dayton-Craig amendment. The third area has to do with section 201. The 
proponents of this amendment say over and over that we cannot negotiate 
away our protections against unfair trade. Yet Section 201 has nothing 
to do with unfair trade. It makes no pretense at unfair trade. Section 
201 simply is a remedy whereby American producers can get relief if 
foreign competition is successful and if the injured American producers 
can show they are losing jobs because of imports.
  It has nothing to do with unfair trade. In a sense, it has to do with 
successful trade. Granted, we are concerned about Americans losing 
their jobs, and we have assistance programs to give them some cushion. 
But is there anybody here who cannot imagine that we might be willing 
to eliminate those protective barriers in return for the elimination of 
similar barriers in Europe, Japan, Korea, or China? Or that we might 
find a better way to compensate and protect injured companies, perhaps 
through trade adjustment assistance?
  This whole debate, the whole title of the amendment, the whole 
preamble to the amendment, is about unfair trade. Yet probably the most 
important laws covered by this amendment has nothing to do with unfair 
trade.
  Am I in favor of unilaterally waiving every 201 right in America? The 
answer is ``No.'' But my point is that if we could eliminate similar 
barriers against American exports, can no one imagine the possibility 
there might be an agreement that would be advantageous to everybody? 
Yet no such agreement could ever be consummated under the Dayton-Craig 
amendment because nobody would negotiate the elimination of their 
protective safeguard against American exports unless

[[Page S4314]]

we eliminate or modify our Section 201 provision. Negotiation in this 
area would be a nonstarter.
  As I said when I started my remarks, our need for fast track arose in 
the Kennedy Round, when President Kennedy recognized that the greatest 
impediment to trade was no longer tariffs but domestic laws that 
limited trade. It was when he tried to change those laws that Congress 
came in and changed the deal. The Kennedy Round went into effect 
without our being a party to it, all because of the issues that are 
raised by the amendment before the Senate. The Round died for exactly 
the issue that are listed here in the Dayton-Craig amendment. The 
recognition that you cannot change a negotiated deal after the fact is 
what led to enactment of fast track. Senator Baucus and I were involved 
in negotiations the other day. There are a lot of things in that final 
deal I really do not like. But I do not have the right to go back after 
the fact and say Senator Baucus gave up on items A, B, C, D, and E, 
which is great, but I want to renegotiate and change our deal. I do not 
have a right to do that. A deal is a deal. That is the very issue the 
Senate is dealing with here.
  The next provisions of law covered by the Dayton-Craig amendment are 
chapters 2, 3, and 5 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974. This is the 
fourth so-called unfair trade protection provision. Yet as one reads 
those chapters, they have nothing to do with unfair trade. They simply 
have to do with the assistance provided to companies and workers 
negatively affected by imports or by a company's shift in production. 
Some may not favor shifts in production, but when did it turn into an 
unfair trade practice? Every day, Americans are moving investments from 
one country to another. We are the world's largest investor. In fact 
one of the things we are trying to do in the underlying bill is to get 
other countries to allow investment in America and allow greater 
freedom for American investments in their country.
  Even if a shift in production were an unfair trade practice, how 
could we say to countries that we want to negotiate away prohibitions 
you have against producing in the United States, but we aren't willing 
to do the same? Remember when we had the big battle with Japan over 
autos? We wanted them to produce some of their automobiles in America, 
and we negotiated over it, and in fact they did increase production 
here. But why would they ever negotiate if we have said in advance that 
we are not willing to eliminate prohibitions against plant relocation 
in our own country? Why should the Japanese allow companies to move out 
of Japan or set up programs that impede the process if we are not 
willing to do it?
  I could go on at length about the other laws covered by this 
amendment. The amendment is written very broadly. It may list 5 bills 
in particular, but it is written so broadly that in my opinion it 
covers at least 18 other laws that are part of current trade law: for 
example, section 1317 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitive Act of 1988; 
the Antidumping Act of 1916; the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000; section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930; section 129 of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act; and the list goes on. The plain truth is, 
given the way it is written, not even the authors of this amendment 
truly know what it does.

  I will conclude by making some final points. I understand the need 
for consensus. We do not get to write these bills by ourselves. It 
requires give and take. My belief, and the belief of the vast majority 
of members of the Republican Conference in the Senate, is that we have 
given. We gave on health benefits that are not paid for, that we think 
represent bad public policy, that take away from poor working people to 
give to relatively high income, nonworking people. We gave on 2 years 
of wage guarantee benefits for people affected by trade. Meanwhile, 
somebody who lost their job because of a terrorist attack gets 6 months 
of unemployment, no health benefits, and no wage insurance benefits. We 
are getting to the point where we have already paid for the trade bill, 
and if this amendment passes on top of those payments, we will not be 
getting a bill at all.
  The principal ingredient of trade promotion authority--in fact the 
heart of it, in its purest form--is very simply the right of the 
President, within the parameters we set out in law, to go out and 
negotiate a trade agreement and bring it back and subject it to a yes-
or-no vote in Congress. We do not have the right to amend a trade 
agreement; we simply have to take the whole thing or reject the whole 
thing. That is what trade promotion authority, or fast track, is. Yet 
the pending amendment says the President does not get an up-or-down 
vote because in some 23 different areas of law, many of which have 
absolutely nothing to do with unfair trade, we can have a separate vote 
and if a majority votes to make a change, then the trade agreement is 
modified. Under those circumstances, nobody will negotiate with us and 
the President effectively does not have fast-track authority.
  So what we have is a bill that claims to be about fast-track 
authority, which is a single take-it-or-leave-it vote on a deal. And 
yet we have an amendment before us that eliminates that provision and 
requires a separate vote on things in the agreement that we do not 
like.
  I do not see how the two can be reconciled. It seems to me that when 
you are voting for this amendment, you are voting against trade 
promotion authority. I do not think you can have it both ways. You 
cannot say on the one hand that we will give the President the right to 
get his agreements voted on up or down, take it or leave it, yes or no; 
and then on the other hand say we can adopt an amendment that says but 
of course on some 23 different provisions of law we don't have to take 
it or leave it, we can change it.
  Today, through a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
Secretary of Commerce, and the Trade Representative, the President 
rightfully has indicated that he will veto the bill if the Dayton-Craig 
amendment is included in it.
  To conclude, we paid a very heavy price to get fast track, and this 
amendment takes fast track away. Rather than pay all these new 
tributes--the expanded trade adjustment assistance, these new health 
benefits that are not paid for, the new entitlements that are not paid 
for, this wage insurance that smells very much like the programs that 
are killing some European countries that have not created a net new job 
in countries in 20 years--we are quickly reaching the point where even 
the strongest proponents of free trade have to say this amendment 
breaks the axle of the wagon. Even the strongest proponents are saying 
that with all else we paid to get a vote on the trade promotion 
authority bill, if this amendment is in the bill it means we don't have 
trade promotion authority, so why pay for all the other things?
  I urge my colleagues as we try to find a solution to this problem. 
That solution might be a compromise in which we set up an oversight 
committee to allow those concerned about these laws to monitor 
negotiations, and provide 90 days' notice of any potential trade 
agreement that changed any of these laws. There are many ways we can 
enhance the ability of Members to be involved and get advance notice to 
allow them build political opposition. I hope those who want to pass 
this bill will find a way to get around this dilemma.
  We are already at the point that given what we are already paying for 
this bill, it almost is not worth it. I believe that at this point, 
many Republican Members of the Senate are holding their nose and 
saying: OK, we have to do a bunch of bad things, but we will get trade 
promotion authority and maybe some of the bad things will be addressed 
in conference. But over and over bills have gotten worse, not better, 
in conference. If you are for trade promotion authority, if you want 
the deal we put together to work, I believe we need help in finding a 
way to respond to the concerns raised without providing for a separate 
vote, because a separate vote destroys trade promotion authority.
  If the two Senators who offered the amendment wanted to be on the 
oversight committee for the Senate, I would be willing to write the 
bill to make sure they were put on it. I don't have any objection to 
oversight and I am for notice. Then, if people were getting ready to 
vote against a fast-tracked trade agreement, they could tell the 
President that if he makes these changes, he is jeopardizing my vote. 
And they would have 90 days to build up an alliance to lobby against 
it.

[[Page S4315]]

When ``lobbying'' is mentioned people say oh gosh, that's terrible, 
terrible. But making your voice heard is a good thing guaranteed under 
the Constitution.
  But what we cannot agree to without killing the underlying bill is 
Congress' ability to change the trade agreement once it has been 
negotiated. The President must be able to say to our trading partner 
that a deal is a deal; not that wait, it was a deal, but the part we 
agreed to that we did not like is not a deal because 51 Members of the 
Senate decided to amend it.
  I accept and am for the process whereby 51 Members of the Senate can 
defeat the implementing bill for a trade agreement. I have never voted 
against an implementing bill, although I can imagine a trade agreement 
that I would think was so bad that it was not worth it. I believe I 
ought to have the right to vote no. And I have that right under fast 
track or trade promotion authority. But I do not have the right to 
change the deal.
  This amendment would allow Congress to change the deal, which is why 
it is a killer amendment. It is the antithesis to what trade promotion 
authority is about. You cannot be for trade promotion authority, which 
is a single vote on the deal, and then be for an amendment that allows 
votes to amend the deal. I don't see why the people who are for this 
amendment don't simply vote against the bill, and let those who are for 
it have a chance to vote for it. The Dayton-Craig amendment would gut 
that process. It would leave the Senate in the unhappy position of 
having a fast track bill that includes an amendment that undoes fast 
track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have listened intently to my colleague, 
the senior Senator from Texas. The reason I do that and I have done 
that for a good many years, I always learn a great deal. I am always 
extremely cautious to get on the floor and debate in opposition to a 
position held by my colleague from Texas, with his skill but, most 
importantly, his knowledge in this area. It is very important. I hope 
all listen.
  I was taking notes as if I were a student at Texas A&M and he were 
the economics professor. In fact, that is what we heard today, a rather 
professorial statement about the ideals of trade in an ideal 
environment. I disagree not with that statement.
  I also agree with the historical perspective that he offered from the 
1960s through the 1970s and the Kennedy Round and the circumstances the 
world found itself in and the need for us to change from being the 
exclusive holder in a constitutional Republic of the right to determine 
international commerce flows to one where we delegated that thought by 
law to the executive, in a great more detail. That, of course, is what 
we did with fast track. That was the 1960s and the 1970s.
  Through that period of the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s, the 
world changed a great deal--really all for our betterment in the broad 
sense. As economies changed and we invested in world economies, there 
is no question that the economic engine of the United States drove the 
world and took a lot of poor countries and made them more prosperous. 
Part of it was because we allowed access to our markets while at the 
same time we promoted their markets and invested in their countries. 
All of that is true, and it will be every bit as true tomorrow and a 
decade or two from now as it was then. I don't disagree with that.
  What I am suggesting is in the year 2002, as we once again search for 
a way to promote trade, we take a nearly 40-year-old model and say it 
works, it fits, it is the right thing to do again. Is it the right 
thing for us to--almost in an exclusive way--delegate full authority to 
the executive branch in an area that is constitutionally ours? I 
believe it is. I believe it is with certain conditions that are very 
limited and very direct. I don't believe they change the dynamics of a 
relationship and ultimately a negotiation.
  It is very difficult to blend a parliamentary government's 
negotiators and what they understand their role is with that of a 
constitutional Republic. I know; I have been there. I have seen the 
frustration of the European parliamentarian who cannot understand why 
the President's men or women cannot speak for the United States and cut 
a deal and confirm it and that is the way it will be if the President 
signs off on it.
  The reason they can't is because of us and because of a little item 
we call the Constitution. While we have delegated that authority by 
law, we have also said it has to come back here on an up-or-down vote.
  What Senator Dayton and I do is go a slight step further and say that 
in those areas that are fixed by law, law that we created, you have to 
come back to us. And not under this sweeping environment and nostalgia 
and euphoria of a trade package that is going to spin the world into 
greater economies are we going to pick apart an agreement. What we are 
saying is simply this. We are saying that you, Mr. President, and your 
team must come back as advocates and sales men and women. As you sell 
the whole package, you have to sell a few of the parts.
  I hope, ultimately, when we see a conference report, it has a 90-day 
notification in it that sets the Congress to task in the sense that it 
notifies it that they will be making some change in current law and we 
are preparing ourselves, we are looking at it, we are making decisions, 
and the President's men and women are here on the Hill advocating and 
saying: It is a quid pro quo: For a reduction here, we get this here; 
for a reduction in our subsidies in agriculture, the Europeans are 
going to reduce their subsidies, they are going to take away some of 
their hidden barriers, and we are going to have greater access to 
markets.
  I think that would sell here in the Senate. I think it would work. I 
think you could find 50 plus 1 who would support that.
  But you have to sell it. We have delegated the authority of 
negotiation, but we have not delegated the authority and the conditions 
of final passage. That alone is ours under the Constitution. That is 
why this is an important debate and, while it may change the character 
from the historic perspective of fast track, I do not believe it 
neuters, I do not believe it nullifies, I do not believe it causes our 
negotiators more encumbrance as they sit down at the table.
  That is because right upfront the terms are understood. It does not 
deny them the right to negotiate anything. Everything is on the table. 
What it does say to the executive branch of Government is: Come home 
and sell your product. Come home and convince Congress you have done 
the right thing and here are all the tradeoffs and the alternatives. 
Because on the whole Congress agrees with the Senator from Texas: Trade 
for the whole of our economy and for job creation is very important.
  Earlier in the day when I was debating the initial Dayton-Craig 
amendment as offered, I talked about Idaho's economy. We have to have 
trade. I know we have to have trade. I am going to work to get trade. 
But I want to tell the Senator from Texas that a good number of years 
ago a young man from Texas came to Idaho. He had been from Idaho 
originally but was working in Texas at a company called Texas 
Instruments, a little old high-tech company that became a big old 
powerful, important, and valuable high-tech company. He came home to 
Idaho, and he convinced a group of investors to go with him and his 
brother because they had a better idea about how to build memory chips.
  They got a group of investors together, and they built a fab, and 
they started producing memory chips--late 1980s, early 1990s. They were 
doing a great job building a DRAM memory chip, selling it to the world, 
and then all of a sudden came the Japanese aggressively into the 
market, deciding they wanted the market, they were going to control the 
market. They had built great fab--or fabrication capacity--and they 
were dumping in our markets. And down went that little company in 
Idaho.
  They came to me and others from Idaho. We went to a President--George 
Bush--and said: President Bush, if you do not help us, this little 
company is going to be destroyed and we are going to lose all of our 
memory chip capacity in this country. There were futurists saying this 
was the loss of the new intelligentsia, of the U.S. economy, and

[[Page S4316]]

if we lost this and gave it away to the Japanese, we would never have 
this new economy.

  The then-President Bush stepped in and said: You are right, and he 
stuck an antidumping clause against the Japanese--backed them off. At 
that little fledgling company in Idaho, the lights went back on, they 
began to produce chips again. Now they are an organization known as 
Micron. They employ 30,000-plus people. They produce 40 percent of the 
memory chips of the world. They are Idaho's major employer. And they 
are in other States. They just bought a fab in Virginia.
  But for a moment in time, the President of the United States used 
antidumping provisions and stopped the Japanese and, in part, shifted 
the world. From that moment through the decade of the 1990s, until 
today, this country has led in the area of new technologies. It truly 
was the economy of the 1990s, in part--a small part but an important 
part--because we helped shape a marketplace and we disallowed 
government-sponsored, government-supported manufacturers in other 
countries from dumping in the world market and, most importantly, in 
our market.
  That is why these tools are important. If they are negotiated away, 
then it is phenomenally important for this Congress to speak to it. 
Nowhere do we say they cannot be brought to the table. Nowhere does the 
Dayton-Craig amendment say they cannot be negotiated. It simply says to 
the negotiators, our negotiators: You have a job to do. You have a very 
important job to do, and that is to sell it. And the same logic that 
sells the whole trade package, 50-plus-1 votes here in this body, 
blocks a point of order on any changes in trade law. That seems to be 
reasonable. That seems to be common sense.
  We can go through all the provisions, and the Senator from Texas did 
that and expanded on them and talked about intellectual property and 
copyrights.
  People come to the United States for the purpose of inventing so they 
can own a piece of their invention and profit by it. That is why we 
have had copyright law. That is why we have led the world and why we 
lead the world today in inventions, in new technologies, largely 
because those who create--those who create through thinking, and that 
materializes in the form of a useable object in the market, in the 
laboratory, in the manufacturing unit--can profit by that for a period 
of time. We protect them.
  Yes, we will negotiate those items. But what we will not do is 
negotiate ours away. We are going to try to make the world a 
transparent place.
  I am amazed that as the world shifted from tariff to antidumping, 
countervailing kinds of trade remedy laws, as is being argued here 
today, we would want to back ours off. I understand trading. I 
understand quid pro quo: You do this and we will do this. But what you 
do must be transparent, what you do must be enforceable, because what 
we do as a representative republic, by the very character of our 
country and the character of our laws, is open. It is done in the 
public eye. It is done in the arena of the international trade debates.
  At the Commission downtown--I have been there to testify; so has the 
Presiding Officer--we have talked about trade issues. We have talked 
about agricultural policy. We have argued before the Commissioners to 
make sure that the findings are correct and they are right. We have 
been there on Canadian-related issues.

  The only reason we are allowed to go is that we have the law so that 
ultimately, if wrongdoing is found, if dumping is found, there is a 
remedy. That remedy usually allows us to cause the other country to 
comply, to come into balance with us. That is what is important here, 
isn't it? That is what helps our farmers. It doesn't protect them, it 
helps them. It allows competition in a fair market. It doesn't protect 
and isolate our manufacturing jobs. It balances it. We hope it makes 
them competitive.
  We had a vote just a few moments ago, and 60 Senators at least 
disagreed with the motion to table the Dayton-Craig amendment. Here is 
probably the reason. Let me read this for the record, and then I will 
step down because others are here to debate.
  During the Doha Round of the WTO in Qatar last year, we know our 
trade ambassador largely believed he was forced to put on the table, as 
a negotiable item, our trade remedy provisions. We in the Senate were 
concerned about that. On May 7 of last year, here is what we said:

       Dear Mr. President:
       We are writing to state our strong opposition to any 
     international trade agreement that would weaken U.S. trade 
     laws.
       Key U.S. trade laws, including antidumping law, 
     countervailing duty law, Section 201, and Section 301, are a 
     critical element of U.S. trade policy. A wide range of 
     agricultural and industrial sectors has successfully employed 
     these statutes to address trade problems. Unfortunately, 
     experience suggests that many other industries are likely to 
     have occasion to rely upon them in future years.

  Why? Because of a changing, growing, maturing world economy there 
will be competitors out there. Let's make sure they are fair.

       Each of these laws is fully consistent with U.S. 
     obligations under the World Trade Organization and other 
     trade agreements.

  Let me repeat: Each of these laws is consistent with U.S. obligations 
under the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements.

       Moreover, these laws actually promote free trade by 
     countering practices that both distort trade and are 
     condemned by international trading rules.
       U.S. trade laws provide American workers and industries the 
     guarantee that, if the United States pursues trade 
     liberalization, it will also protect them against unfair 
     foreign trade practices and allow time for them to address 
     serious import surges. They are part of a political bargain 
     struck with Congress and the American people under which the 
     United States has pursued market opening trade agreements in 
     the past.
       Congress has made clear its position on this matter. In 
     draft fast track legislation considered in 1997, both Houses 
     of Congress have included strong provisions directing trade 
     negotiators not to weaken U.S. trade laws.

  Some of those provisions are in the current document here on the 
floor to which we are offering an amendment.

       Congress has restated this position in resolutions, 
     letters, and through other means.
       Unfortunately, some of our trading partners, many of whom 
     maintain serious unfair trade practices, continue to seek to 
     weaken these laws. This may simply be posturing by those who 
     oppose future market opening, but--whatever the motive--the 
     United States should no longer use its trade laws as 
     bargaining chips in trade negotiations nor agree to any 
     provisions that weaken or undermines U.S. trade laws.
       We look forward to your response.
       Sincerely--

  And it is signed by 62 Members of the Congress, Democrat and 
Republican alike.
  What we are offering today in the Dayton-Craig amendment is fully 
consistent with the letter we sent to the President last May 7. The 
vote we had an hour or so ago to table the Dayton-Craig amendment is 
almost to the vote similar to this letter. In other words, I do not 
believe the Senate has changed its mind. I think the President has a 
very clear message.
  But what is most important is not our President. We want him to 
negotiate. We want him to put the items on the table. We want him to 
engage the world. We want to trade. We want our producers to produce 
for a world market. What we do not want is an agreement struck that is 
impossible to take. What we do want is for the rest of the world to 
know that we will, in some ways, protect and provide for the American, 
the U.S. economy in a way that allows us to prosper while allowing 
other countries entry into our economy, and we hope they will allow us 
into theirs, and in fair, balanced, and equitable processes.
  That is what is at issue. I believe that is the essence of the 
debate. Idealism has its place. Academic arguments are critically 
important. But today we talk about the practical application of the law 
and our constitutional responsibility, and the impact it has on my 
farmers and my ranchers and my working men and women, who, like me, 
believe they have to trade in a world market to stay economically 
alive.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator raised an excellent point which I had not 
thought of until the Senator made the point: 62 Senators signed that 
letter. Sixty-one Senators voted today in support of the Craig-Dayton 
amendment.

[[Page S4317]]

And the one Senator who was necessarily absent was a cosponsor of that 
amendment.
  So does the Senator believe, then, this sends a message when 62 
Senators sign a letter that they mean what they say?
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. The point is well 
taken.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend from North Dakota to yield 
to me without losing his right to the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I very much appreciate my friend for 
yielding.
  What I want to say is that we have an amendment now before the 
Senate. I believe we should act on this matter. I have told my friend, 
the Senator from Iowa, we are not going to do anything as long as he is 
on the floor. But I would say, through him to my friend from Texas, my 
dear friend, Senator Gramm, that if he wants to filibuster this 
amendment, he is going to have to have a real filibuster. He is not 
going to be able to come and go from the floor because we have to move 
on.
  I know his heart is in the right place, ``his heart'' meaning Senator 
Gramm's heart is in the right place. But we have had a vote this 
morning that shows 61 Senators are in favor of this amendment. It would 
seem to me we should move on this amendment and go on to something 
else.
  I spoke to the Senator from North Dakota earlier today. He has at 
least four or five very substantive amendments. I think we should get 
on to those. I have spoken to other Senators who have amendments. I 
know there are approximately 10 amendments from the other side. And it 
is being held up.
  I repeat, if the Senator from Texas wants to conduct a filibuster, he 
is going to have to conduct a real, honest filibuster, not just tell us 
he is going to talk a lot on this. If I did not have the relationship I 
have with my friend from Iowa--and I hope we can work something out--we 
would have moved the question when the Senator--not this Senator was 
off the floor but when the Senator from Texas was off the floor.
  So I hope we can move forward. There are a number of people who are 
not real anxious to move this legislation at all. And my friend from 
Texas, who claims he is in favor of it, is working into the hands of 
those who do not want to move the legislation. It is kind of a unique 
twist of logic, as far as I am concerned. I know my friend from Texas 
is very logical. He has the mind of an academic. And I understand that. 
But being very base about all this, there are certain parliamentary 
rules in the Senate, and we are going to stick to them. We are not 
going to have a gentleman's filibuster. It is going to be a real 
filibuster or no filibuster.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada makes an 
interesting point about the difficulty of getting a vote even on 
amendments that have wide support.
  Nearly a week and a half ago I offered my amendment dealing with 
chapter 11 of NAFTA, to deal with the issue of secret multinational 
tribunals that consider trade bases behind closed doors. This was an 
amendment that was bipartisan, and had wide support. I offered my 
amendment, and there was a tabling motion. We had 67 Members of the 
Senate vote against tabling, and then we could not get the amendment 
adopted. A number of days elapsed where we just could not get the 
amendment adopted.
  It appears the same thing is happening here. The same Member of the 
Senate is doing it. He certainly has a right to do that, but as the 
Senator from Nevada says, if somebody wants to filibuster this, then 
let him come to the floor and bring a pitcher of water, get some 
comfortable shoes on, and stand here for a few hours.
  But what I hope we will do is adopt the Dayton-Craig amendment. It is 
quite clear, from the evidence of the vote on tabling a while ago, that 
this amendment will pass by a very significant margin. And the sooner 
the better.
  I tell you, I listened, at great length, to my friend from Texas. I 
must say that I actually taught economics in college for a couple 
years, but I was able to overcome that experience and go on to lead a 
different life.
  The issue that is before us is not about economic theory. It is about 
the reality of trade relationships we have with other countries--and 
what real remedies we have to address that unfair trade.
  I am sure there are people listening to this debate or watching this 
debate, and they think this all sounds like a foreign language: CVD, 
antidumping, 301, 201, chapter 11.

  But trade issues can and should be discussed in terms of how they 
impact real people. This debate is about real people in our country 
that decide to form a company, to produce a product and market it, and 
then have to contend with foreign competition. I have no problem with 
fair competition--I welcome it. But when our producers' competitors 
overseas are exploiting the labor of a 12-year-old for 12 cents an hour 
locked in a garage 12 hours a day, is that fair competition?
  Take a person who works in a manufacturing plant and has worked there 
22 years, is an honest employee, has committed his or her life to that 
employer, only to discover that next month the identical product is 
coming in from Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or Indonesia, produced by 
children working 12 hours a day or 14 hours a day, getting just cents 
per hour. Fair competition?
  American workers are told that they cannot compete. You, Mr. and Mrs. 
America, can't compete because working in this factory we have 12-year-
olds who will work for less money than you will. They live in countries 
where it is all right to work them 12 hours a day and pay them $2 at 
the end of a day. That is not fair competition.
  The issue is, what are the remedies? What can we do about that? 
Should we be able to do something about it? Should our trade laws allow 
our companies and our workers to do something about trade that they 
think is fundamentally unfair?
  The answer clearly ought to be yes. If the answer is not yes, then 
just forget about the past 100 years of history dealing with labor and 
other issues.
  There are people who died on the streets in America some three-
quarters of a century ago, during the struggle of American labor to get 
the right to organize and form labor unions. There are people who 
risked their lives in this country because they demanded that we have a 
safe workplace. There are people who risked their jobs and their lives 
fighting for the issue of child labor laws so we could take kids out of 
the coal mines.
  The fact is, we worked on all of these issues for a long time. Over a 
century this country had to digest these issues. Should we have a 
requirement for a safe workplace? Should we have child labor laws so 
people aren't putting 8 and 10 and 12-year-olds down in the mines? 
Should we have a requirement of a minimum wage? Should we have the 
right to organize as workers? The answer to all of those issues has 
been yes. But it was never an easy yes. It took this country decades to 
get through those discussions and debates. As I said, there were some 
people who died on the streets during the violence that ensued over 
those debates.
  A century later we have some who say, let's just get a big old pole 
and pole vault over all those issues and act as if they don't exist. 
Because you can start a company and you don't have to worry about that. 
You don't have to worry about whether you hire kids. Just go to another 
country and hire kids. You don't have to worry about paying a decent 
wage. You can go somewhere else and pay them 24 cents an hour to put 
together canvas bags so they can be shipped to Fargo or Los Angeles or 
Pittsburgh. You don't have to worry about dumping chemicals and 
pollutants into the streams and the air. Just move your factory 
somewhere else where they don't have environmental laws, laws that 
protect the drinking water and the air. You can

[[Page S4318]]

just pole vault over all of that and decide to move all these jobs 
somewhere.
  The person who is working in that factory and has been there 22 years 
says: Wait a second. What has happened to my job?
  That person is told: Your job is gone, my friend. Your job is 
somewhere else because you were too expensive. There are kids who will 
work for less money in another country. They will work all the overtime 
hours they are told to work, and they have no recourse.
  I happen to believe that expanded trade and fair trade is good for 
this country. I think it enhances this country. It increases the 
opportunity for a better economy. But I don't think we can talk about 
fair trade without addressing the issues I am describing.
  We have a lot of people in our country who work hard all day, every 
day. To be told that somehow they can't compete because someone else 
can produce that product at a fraction of the price because they don't 
have to follow any rules, anyplace, anytime, that is not fair trade.
  What we have is a situation where globalization is here. No one is 
attempting to turn back globalization. It is a fact of life today in 
the world. This is a globalized economy. The question isn't whether 
globalization. The question is what are the rules for globalization. 
What are the rules for the global economy?
  There is an admission price to this marketplace, and that is fair 
trade. That is part of what we are trying to define with respect to the 
rules of the global economy.
  My colleagues, Senators Dayton and Craig, have offered an amendment. 
It is a fairly straightforward amendment. It says that if and when the 
next trade agreement is negotiated under fast track rules and brought 
back to the Congress, we ought to have the right to have a separate 
vote on any provision that diminishes the protections we now have to 
take action against those who engage in unfair trade practices against 
our businesses and against our workers.
  If they do anything behind a closed door in some foreign land where 
they negotiate a trade agreement to diminish our protection to take 
action against unfair trade, we reserve the right to have a separate 
vote on it.
  Let me show you what Mr. Zoellick said in Doha, Qatar. I wonder how 
many of the Members of the Senate could point to Doha on a world map. I 
will tell you why this ministerial meeting was held in Doha: Because 
they couldn't hold it anyplace else. You have to find a place that is 
very hard to find and has very few hotel rooms in order to avoid the 
people who will demonstrate against these trade agreements these days. 
So they picked Doha, Qatar.
  Last November at the ministerial meeting, Trade Representative 
Zoellick agreed that U.S. antidumping laws could be discussed as a new 
trade round gets underway.
  Why is this important? Well, we have laws that say to other countries 
and other producers, you can't dump your products into this country. 
You can't, for example, produce a product that costs you $100 to 
produce and dump it in the American marketplace for $50 apiece to 
undercut the American producer.
  My colleague from Texas said: Gee, that is a good thing, isn't it, 
that they are going to send a $100 product over here and sell it for 
$50.
  Well, I guess it is a good thing if you don't lose your job as a 
result of it. I don't know of one Senator or one Member of the House 
who has ever lost a job because of a bad trade agreement. Just name 
one, just one man or woman serving in the Senate or House who has ever 
lost their job because of a bad trade agreement. It is just folks out 
there who work all day in factories being closed because of bad trade 
agreements who lose their jobs.
  That is not theory. Those are broken dreams. Somebody coming home 
from work having to say: Honey, they told me I have lost my job today 
because I can't compete. I can't compete with 50 cents an hour wages, 
working 12-hour days in a factory where they don't have to worry about 
pollution. That is what antidumping laws try to remedy.

  What Senators Dayton and Craig say with this amendment is very 
simple: If you want to negotiate an agreement, Mr. Trade Ambassador, 
that negotiates away our antidumping laws, then Congress has a right to 
have a separate vote on that provision pertaining to our trade laws. 
Because this Congress is not any longer going to allow you to dilute or 
delete the protections and remedies which we have to deal with unfair 
trade.
  I have spoken at length in this Chamber about my concern about our 
trade policy. We have a trade deficit that is growing and growing and 
no one cares a whit about it: Over $400 billion a year. Every single 
day we add over $1 billion to our trade deficit and our current 
accounts balance.
  We used to have debates about deficits in this Chamber, about fiscal 
policy deficits when the budget deficit was $290 billion and going in 
the wrong direction. We would have debates, we would have people doing 
handstands and cartwheels about how awful it was. Not a word about the 
trade deficit.
  One can make the case in theory that the budget deficit is a deficit 
we owe to ourselves. One cannot make that case about the trade deficit. 
The trade deficit is going to be paid for by a lower standard of living 
in America's future, and over $1 billion a day every single day we are 
adding to the merchandise trade deficit.
  This trade policy of ours is not working. We cannot load ourselves up 
with debt and choke on this trade debt and say: Boy, this is a good 
thing; this is really working well.
  I have been very critical of our trade ambassadors, Republicans and 
Democrats, for not having the backbone to take action when we see 
unfair trade. We now have remedies that are not used. Even when they 
use remedies, I always scratch my head and think: What a strange 
approach.
  We have a little dispute with Europe. The dispute is with respect to 
beef produced with hormones that are banned in Europe. We went to the 
WTO, and the WTO ruled in our favor. But Europe said: Fly a kite. 
Europe would not comply with the WTO requirement, and so we took action 
against Europe.
  Mr. President, do you know what we did to Europe? Our negotiators 
said: We are imposing sanctions on imports of truffles, Roquefort 
cheese, and goose liver. That will sure strike fear in the hearts of 
competitors. Those engaged in unfair trade ought to know from here on 
forward, America takes tough action to deal with goose liver imports.
  My point is, our country does not stand up for its economic interest 
in international trade very often, and to weaken the remedies that 
already exist--they did that under the United States-Canada agreement 
and under NAFTA. Section 22 used to be helpful to us. Not anymore. 
Section 301 is weakened and diminished as an area of trade protection.
  It is interesting, I pointed out the antidumping laws we now have are 
on the trading block. Our allies who want to get rid of these 
antidumping laws in our country will negotiate them away, if they can. 
And by the way, they will do that in secret because the American public 
and Congress will not be there when it is done. It will be done, in 
most cases, in a foreign land behind a closed door. They will bring it 
back here and say: you have one vote on it, yes or no, and it deals 
with a broad range of issues and you cannot get at the antidumping 
provision we traded away because you just get a yes or no on the entire 
product. That is why Senators Dayton and Craig say this is not the 
right thing to do.
  I was interested to hear, this morning, one of my colleagues talk 
about all of the trade problems we have, as if to suggest we should 
blame ourselves for the problems. We have trouble getting high-fructose 
corn syrup into Mexico. So that is our problem? I do not think so. That 
is Mexico's fault. Grain coming in from Canada by the Canadian Wheat 
Board unfairly subsidized, that is our problem? Not where I sit it is 
not. That is Canada's unfair trading practice. I could go on and list a 
dozen more. Seventy percent tariff on wheat flour into Europe, is that 
fair? I do not think so.

  I cannot even begin to talk about our trade problems with China. And 
it's not just unfair trade, it's also about badly negotiated trade 
agreements.
  A year and a half ago, we negotiated a bilateral agreement with 
China. The United States agreed that after a long phase-in with respect 
to automobiles, any Chinese cars that are sent to the United States 
will be subject to a 2.5-

[[Page S4319]]

percent tariff on them. Any U.S. cars that are sent to China will be 
subject to a 25-percent tariff.
  So we have a 2.5-percent tariff on the Chinese cars coming into our 
market, but the Chinese can impose a tariff that is 10 times higher on 
U.S. cars into China. You ask: How did that happen? Because our 
negotiators negotiated away the store. It is the same squishy-headed 
nonsense our negotiators do every time they negotiate.
  Will Rogers once said--I have told my colleagues this many times--the 
United States of America has never lost a war and never won a 
conference. He surely must have been thinking of our trade negotiators. 
They seem to manage to lose within a week or two of leaving our shores.
  Whenever I talk about trade, someone will call my office and say: you 
are a protectionist. I am not. If protectionism means standing up for 
America's economic interest, then count me in, sign me up, that is what 
I want to do but I am not asking for anything special for anybody. I 
want all our people to have to compete--farmers, businesses, and 
others. But I want the competition to be fair, and if the competition 
is not fair, then I want the remedies available to address that 
unfairness. Those remedies have been weakened dramatically, and they 
will be weakened further, mark my words, in the next set of 
negotiations.
  This amendment is not in any way, as some have said, a killer 
amendment. That is not what this amendment is about. If my colleagues 
want to stand up for American jobs and demand fair trade and demand the 
remedies that will get you to fair trade, then it seems to me they have 
an obligation to support this amendment.
  I was pleased with the last tabling vote because it showed an 
overwhelming number of Members of the Senate understand this issue and 
are no longer going to sit quietly by and say: You go ahead and 
negotiate. Get on an airplane, go someplace, roll up your shirt 
sleeves, and negotiate. Whatever you come back with, that is fine, we 
will handcuff ourselves. You can negotiate away our antidumping laws; 
you can trade away our remedies; and we will agree to handcuff 
ourselves and not have a vote on it.
  I believe the Senate is finally saying to those who will listen: We 
are not willing to do that.
  I did not support providing fast-track trade authority to President 
Clinton, and I do not support giving it to President Bush. I say to 
this administration, as I said to the past administration: Negotiate 
agreements and you will do so with my best wishes. And I hope you will 
negotiate good agreements for our country, agreements that stand up for 
our economic interest, and agreements that demand that the rules for 
that competition be fair. Then come back, and when you see unfair 
trade, be willing to stand up, have the guts to stand up for this 
country's interest.

  The reason there is so much anger about trade these days--we see it 
in the streets during these ministerials, and we hear it in the 
debates--is because we are so anxious to negotiate the next agreement 
and so unwilling to enforce the last agreement.
  We have done so many agreements with Japan that nobody can even find 
the agreements. USTR cannot find all the agreements the United States 
has with Japan, let alone enforce them. We have something like eight to 
nine people in the Department of Commerce enforcing our trade 
agreements with respect to China. The same is true with respect to 
Japan, eight or nine people. Why? Because this country is not serious 
about enforcing trade laws. This country is serious only about 
negotiating the next agreement and not caring how many people lose 
their jobs because of unfair trade that results from that agreement.
  My beef with trade is that, A, we negotiate bad agreements and, B, we 
consistently fail and in most cases refuse to enforce the agreements we 
do negotiate.
  I will conclude by saying this: We have, for the 50 or so years 
following the Second World War, largely dealt with trade as a matter of 
foreign policy. For the first 25 years after the Second World War, it 
was not a problem dealing with trade as foreign policy. This country 
could tie one hand behind its back and beat anybody at any time in 
almost anything in international trade. So our concessions in trade to 
almost every country were concessions that reflected the struggle that 
economy was having and our ability to help them in that struggle.
  The second 25 years after the Second World War, our competitors 
became shrewd, tough international negotiators. Our trade policy must 
change to be a trade policy that demands the rules of fair competition, 
and is no longer about foreign policy.
  There is one issue in recent days that demonstrates that trade is 
still, in many cases, foreign policy, and that is with Cuba. Cuba is a 
communist country, no question about that. So is China. So is Vietnam. 
We have people traveling back and forth to China and Vietnam. We trade 
with China and Vietnam, but we have a 40-year failed embargo with Cuba. 
Until I and a couple of others from this Chamber fought to get food 
shipped to Cuba, we could not even ship food to Cuba. Cuba could not 
buy food from us. That did not hurt Castro. He never missed a meal. It 
hurt poor, sick, and hungry people. That has finally changed, except we 
have some people in the State Department who still do not want to ship 
food to Cuba, and they are trying to impede in every possible way 
American food from being sold in the country of Cuba. So once again, 
trade policy is not trade policy, it is foreign policy.
  I think it would be smart if we could get some of the folks in the 
State Department to stop meddling in trade policy. They should start 
worrying a little more about terrorists with bombs and a little less 
about Cubans who want to buy beans in this country.
  I have taken a long, meandering road to get to the point, but it is 
therapeutic to talk about these trade issues from time to time. The 
Dayton-Craig amendment is a very simple, straightforward amendment that 
this Senate ought to enact and ought to do so soon. We have now been on 
this amendment a good many hours. These are people who apparently 
support fast track but do not support the Senate imposing its will with 
a popular vote, as was the case on a motion to table the Dayton-Craig 
amendment. I hope that we can get past this and put our trade 
ambassador and our trading partners on notice, that we will not trade 
our remedies that exist against unfair trade.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                Amendment No. 3411 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest public health 
challenges we are facing in the world today is the pandemic of AIDS in 
Africa, increasingly in India and the subcontinent, spreading as well 
into China, and also the Soviet Union. It is most dramatically 
expressed in the neediest and the poorest countries of the world.
  I think Africa has been on the minds of many of us in the Senate 
about how we were going to respond and how we were really going to 
provide international leadership. The United States has been a country 
that has developed a variety of different medications over the period 
of recent years, as well as treatment for a wide variety of different 
kinds of AIDS cases, particularly in the area of pediatric AIDS and 
other types of challenges that have affected those with HIV. We are now 
involved in responding to the real challenge of Kofi Annan and the 
world community in providing world leadership, in providing funding, 
and being replicated by other countries. We still have a long way to 
go, but I think many of us who have watched this develop in terms of 
the breadth of the support from our Members have been impressed that we 
are finally beginning to measure up, although I think we do have a long 
way to go.
  Having said that, one of the great challenges that these countries 
have is acquiring the various kinds of prescription drugs they need. 
One of the issues that will be presented, should this legislation be 
passed and signed into law, still will be what is the availability of 
some of these generic drugs, which might provide a lifesaving 
circumstance to millions of people around the world if they are able to 
be produced, in these countries that do not have the resources to buy 
the brand name drugs.
  The question has been whether these countries that are facing this 
kind of extraordinary crisis would be able to issue what is called a 
compulsory license that would permit them to buy

[[Page S4320]]

generic drugs that are being either produced or can be produced in 
their own country or in another country, and that has been very much an 
issue. This amendment, which I would offer myself with a number of our 
colleagues, would make it very clear that if the country itself issued 
what is called a compulsory license, based upon the critical need and 
public health disaster they are facing, it could not be considered to 
be in violation of the trade laws, and they would be able to either 
develop that capability within the country or, for example, if we were 
talking about Botswana, which has a high incidence of HIV and AIDS, be 
able to make contracts with other countries and purchase a generic, 
which they would be interested in doing, as I understand, with Brazil 
or other nations.
  It is perhaps, in many respects, one of the most important 
clarifications in terms of the health care crisis of HIV and of AIDS. 
This provision will make a very substantial difference. The cloudiness 
that currently surrounds this issue will be eliminated with this 
amendment. The amendment is very simple. It ensures those countries hit 
hardest by the AIDS crisis and other public health emergencies will 
have access to the affordable medicines to address these crises. It 
does this by expressing support for the Doha declaration on TRIPS and 
the public health as adopted by the World Trade Organization last 
November.
  The Doha declaration was supported by Ambassador Zoellick, the 
pharmaceutical industry, and thousands of public health advocates and 
religious leaders. It is one of the most important global health issues 
we face today, and I am pleased we could address it in a bipartisan 
manner.

  I will submit a more complete statement for the Record, but I 
acknowledge and thank the chairman, Senator Baucus, and Senator 
Grassley and their staffs for their willingness to consider this 
amendment.
  I am not going to ask that the current amendment be temporarily set 
aside, but I had the opportunity to talk with the chairman earlier--the 
ranking member was not present--with his staff, and so at an 
appropriate time--and I will leave it up to the managers to work out 
what is the appropriate time--I hope this amendment might be considered 
favorably.
  As I say, this is a matter of enormous importance and incredible 
consequence. It really will result in the savings of hundreds of 
thousands of lives. It needs to be clarified in an important way. I 
welcome the strong bipartisan support of my colleagues who are 
supportive of this proposal on both sides of the aisle. It will be 
enormously welcomed by the neediest countries in the world.


                           amendment no. 3408

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support this important 
amendment. This amendment will help preserve our trade laws by allowing 
Congress to exclude trade remedy provisions from any agreement 
receiving fast track consideration. This is extremely important at a 
time when our trade laws are under attack at the WTO.
  Here's how it would work: Should Congress receive a trade agreement 
containing a provision changing current U.S. trade remedy law, the 
provision would be subject to a point of order. After hearing the 
administration's concerns about minority obstructionism, Senators 
Dayton and Craig changed this amendment so that the point of order is 
now subject to a simple majority vote. Yet, still the administration 
opposes this amendment. It opposes the legislature of the United States 
having a simple up or down vote on a provision of a trade agreement 
that changes existing law that this body made. In fact, the Secretary 
of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the USTR have said they 
would strongly recommend to the President that he veto this bill if the 
Dayton-Craig amendment passes.
  This amendment is entirely appropriate. Given many of the trade 
agreements we have seen, at a minimum, this body should ensure we 
retain our authority and obligation to fully deliberate and debate and 
proposed changes to U.S. trade remedy law. The amendment would provide 
a critical channel through which Senators could act to prevent such 
undesirable agreements as the one made--in spite of our strong and 
vocal opposition--at the latest WTO negotiations in Doha: In May 2001, 
62 Senators sent a letter to the President specifically opposing any 
weakening of trade remedy laws in international negotiations; in a 
subsequent Hill appearance USTR Zoellick made a public commitment to 
Senator Rockefeller that the administration would not permit this to 
happen.
  At Doha however, other WTO member countries demanded U.S. trade 
remedy laws be put on the table as a condition of beginning the new 
round. So, despite the word of the Administration that this would 
happen--it did. The administration broke its word to us and our trade 
remedy laws are on the table. With this amendment, we will send a 
strong message directly to other WTO countries and the administration 
that the U.S. Senate will not tolerate any weakening of these critical 
laws.
  Oddly enough, while the administration continues to allow our trading 
partners to rewriter U.S. trade remedy laws, China refuses to even 
discuss theirs. Accordingly to last Friday's Inside U.S. Trade:

       China over the past week continued to resist efforts aimed 
     at reaching agreement on timelines and procedures for 
     information it must provide to the World Trade Organization 
     committees in charge of reviews of its trade remedy laws that 
     were set up as a condition of China's entry to the WTO. China 
     charged this week that these proposed procedures go beyond 
     the obligations of its accession commitments . . . 
     Specifically, China, argues it is not obligated to discuss 
     specific procedures for the reviews of its antidumping, 
     subsidies and safeguards mechanisms.

  There is absolutely no reason for us to allow the safeguards provided 
by our trade laws to be undermined by the concerted efforts other 
countries in multilateral negotiations. All of our trade remedy laws--
from the anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the Trade Act's 
section 201 and 301--are entirely consistent with WTO principles and 
help protect U.S. workers and producers from unfair trade practices.
  At a press conference last week, USTR Zoellick said this amendment 
would prevent the U.S. from negotiating on trade remedies, and because 
this issue is a priority for U.S. trading partners, the amendment would 
lead these countries to refuse to negotiate at all. This statement 
should make it clear to all that not only does this administration 
believe certain countries are willing to trade with us only if they are 
able to weaken or undermine our trade remedy laws; but that it intends 
to accommodate them. By permitting a point of order against any trade 
agreement provisions that change our trade laws, this amendment 
provides an extra level of protection for these vitally important 
safeguards. These laws have been effectively employed in a variety of 
sectors to address numerous trade imbalances or to give domestic 
producers vital time to address major import surges.
  Our spring wheat farmers in Minnesota have been struggling for years 
to win effective relief against cheap imports from Canada. And its not 
that Minnesota wheat producers cannot compete with their Canadian 
counterparts--it is that the Canadian system is run so very differently 
from ours that direct competition simply does not occur. The Canadian 
Wheat Board enjoys monopoly control over their domestic wheat markets. 
Its ability to set prices months in advance effectively insulates 
Canadian wheat farmers from the commercial risks that Minnesota growers 
are routinely exposed to, and gives their product a built-in advantage 
right here in our own American market. Unfortunately our softwood 
lumber producers have faced many of the same obstacles in competing 
with their Canadian counterparts. Of course we are disappointed that we 
were unable to informally resolve our differences with our close friend 
and ally. But at least we have meaningful trade remedy laws we can fall 
back on. The International Trade Commission and the Department of 
Commerce found earlier this month that our lumber industry is 
threatened with material injury from subsidized Canadian imports. As a 
result, countervailing duty and antidumping duties will be issued on 
these products.

  Another Minnesota industry that has been immeasurably helped by these 
trade remedy laws is that of sugar beet

[[Page S4321]]

production. Together with our hard working neighbors in North Dakota, 
our beet sugar industry is the largest in the country--an estimated $1 
billion in economic benefits flows from it each year. Yet without the 
protection of our trade remedy laws, this industry could be in serious 
jeopardy. Our trading partners in the EU are one of the largest 
exporters of beet sugar in the world yet it is well-known that they 
have been heavily subsidizing their production. Our industry cannot and 
should not be expected to compete with such heavily subsidized imports. 
This is why there are antidumping and countervailing duty orders 
currently in effect on imported European beet sugar. As Minnesota beet 
sugar producers know all too well, these orders are entirely 
appropriate and very necessary countermeasures to the considerable 
subsidies that EU producers enjoy.
  We cannot expect our producers to be able to compete with the 
unreasonably low prices that subsidies or closed, monopolistic systems 
produce. We look forward to the day when there is a more level playing 
field. But until that day comes, it is vitally important that we 
protect and maintain these trade remedy laws that all too often 
represent their only hope for much-needed relief.
  As we have learned over the past decade, trade liberalization has 
increased the opportunities for unscrupulous countries or industries to 
manipulate markets through unfair trade practices. With major new 
agreements like the FTAA on the horizon, it is imperative that we 
maintain these important laws so that they can continue to be used to 
protect our workers and companies from the risks posed by those who 
seek to distort and manipulate the very markets we are seeking to open 
to free and fair competition.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Dayton-Craig 
amendment.
  I have no doubt that the sponsors of the Dayton-Craig amendment have 
nothing but the best intentions. They believe that they are protecting 
the interests of the American public by walling off our Nation's trade 
remedy laws.
  Senators Dayton and Craig believe that the Congress should take a 
special look to determine whether a particular trade agreement 
undermines our trade remedy laws. These important protections include 
the anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws.
  I understand what my friends, Senators Dayton and Craig, are 
attempting to do with their amendment. But the trade promotion 
authority bill before us today already addresses their major concern--
the weakening of our domestic trade laws.
  The bill before us already gives clear direction to our U.S. 
negotiators to ``avoid agreements that lessen the effectiveness of 
domestic and international disciplines on unfair trade.'' This includes 
dumping, subsidies, and safeguards.
  Under the provisions of the Dayton-Craig amendment, a minority of 
this body could work to defeat future trade agreements. By raising a 
point of order objection, any one Senator could slow the chance for any 
future trade agreement and 41 Senators could effectively kill a global 
trade agreement signed by the President, passed by the House and 
supported by a majority in the Senate, for any reason--even one totally 
unrelated to trade laws--as long as the implementing bill contained any 
change, no matter how minor, to a U.S. trade law.
  If this amendment were to pass and become law, the United States' 
negotiating position would be severely weakened in any future trade 
talks. Our trading partners will view this amendment as a 
vulnerability--in essence, by passing this amendment we are outlining 
to our potential trading partners our greatest negotiating weakness.
  If we declare U.S. trade laws off limits, I must ask if this is 
really the best way to encourage other countries to bring their trade 
laws up to U.S. standards which, most would agree are the gold standard 
that all countries strive to meet? But sometimes you can't get here 
from there immediately, and you have to take intermediate steps along 
the way.
  While I believe that the United States has enacted and plays by a 
fair set of rule with respect to trade remedy laws, we should never 
send a signal to our neighbors that our laws cannot be improved and 
should not be the subject for discussion.
  I have absolute faith that the President, Secretary Evans, and 
Ambassador Zoellick would never do anything to fundamentally undercut 
our trade remedy laws.
  And what if I am wrong, and the administration gave away the store in 
a negotiation on our antidumping laws?
  The remedy would be simple--the Congress would not adopt the trade 
treaty. The President would quickly get the message and would learn how 
far is too far.
  While this would be harsh medicine, it would be what the doctor 
ordered. The Constitution gives the Congress an active role in the 
development of international trade policy. We are not to be a potted 
plant or a rubber stamp.
  There is good reason to believe that we will not go down this path 
absent the Dayton-Craig amendment.
  Let me be clear, as part of granting fast track authority to the 
President, Congress naturally will expect extensive consultation and 
notification procedures.
  Success in passing TPA will require a close partnership between the 
executive and legislative branches of our Government. The Constitution 
grants Congress the authority to promote international commerce.
  However, the Constitution also gives the President the responsibility 
to conduct foreign policy. Thus, the very nature of our Constitution 
requires a partnership between the executive and legislative branches 
of government in matters of international trade negotiations. That is 
what the trade promotion authority bill is all about--a partnership 
between the executive and legislative branches of government to enable 
U.S. consumers, workers and firms to be effectively represented at the 
negotiating table.
  The current TPA bill already establishes extraordinary procedures for 
congressional consultations and review of negotiations involving U.S. 
trade remedy laws. Under the procedures outlined in this bill, the 
President must give an advance report to the Senate Finance and House 
Ways and Means Committees at least 90 days before the United States 
enters into a trade agreement. This report must outline any amendments 
to U.S. laws on antidumping, countervailing duties and safeguards that 
the President proposes to include in a trade implementing bill.
  After the President notifies Congress of his trade negotiation 
intentions, the chairs and ranking members of the relevant committees 
then report to their respective chambers on their own assessments as to 
the integrity of the proposed changes to the TPA's objectives.

  The effect of these provisions would be to assure that the President 
and the Congress are on the same page regarding proposals in trade 
negotiations on subsidies, dumping, and safeguards.
  I might add that one need not look back very far to prove the resolve 
of President Bush's administration in upholding our trade laws. Just 
this year the President took action to save the U.S. steel industry and 
made a bold move to slow the unfair import of soft-wood lumber.
  This is not an administration, in my opinion, that is looking to 
weaken our trade laws.
  Here is what the administration has said about the Dayton-Craig 
amendment:

       . . . the amendment derails TPA without justification. The 
     Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to U.S. 
     trade laws not through talk but through action. We have been 
     committed not just to preserving U.S. trade laws, but more 
     importantly, to using them. The administration initiated an 
     historic Section 201 investigation that led to the imposition 
     of wide-ranging safeguards for the steel industry. The 
     administration's willingness to enforce vigorously our trade 
     laws, in Canadian lumber and other cases, sends the clearest 
     signal of our interest in defending these laws in the WTO.

  This administration takes the trade protection laws very seriously.
  The administration has also warned us about what may very likely 
happen if we adopt this seemingly good-government amendment.
  Here is what Secretary Evans, Secretary Veneman, and Ambassador 
Zoellick are worried about, if we adopt this misguided amendment: ``the 
rest of the world will determine that the U.S. Congress has ruled out 
even discussion of a major topic. Other countries will refuse to 
discuss their own

[[Page S4322]]

sensitive subjects, unraveling the entire trade negotiation to the 
detriment of U.S. workers, farmers, and consumers.''
  It seems to me that this is a dynamic that we ought to worry about.
  And I think this could very well extend to places where it can 
materially injure American leadership in high technology. As Ranking 
Republican Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am particularly 
concerned that some nations might remain derelict, or become derelict, 
in their responsibilities of implementing the TRIPS provisions of GATT. 
These are the intellectual property provisions relating to 
international trade.
  It is the TRIPS provisions that govern such valuable intellectual 
property as patents and copyrights. We know that a great deal of 
American inventive capacity is tied to the software, information 
technology, entertainment, and biotechnology industries. We are the 
world's leaders in these vital areas. We should not encourage or allow 
other nations to unilaterally enact their own Dayton-Craig-type 
provisions that act to allow them to delay TRIPS implementation.
  All you have to do is to read the latest USTR report on special 301 
with respect to intellectual property to see the potential scope of the 
problem. This lays out which countries need to do better in meeting 
their obligations under TRIPS with respect to intellectual property.
  Just so everybody knows, the priority watch list countries are: 
Argentina; Brazil; Columbia; the Dominican Republic; the EU; Egypt; 
Hungary; India; Indonesia; Israel; Lebanon; the Philippines; Russia; 
Taiwan; and Uruguay. In addition to these countries, Ukraine continues 
to be listed as a priority foreign country because it has been 
determined by USTR that it has a particularly poor record in this area.
  Dayton-Craig can only send a signal to these priority watch list 
countries that they can try to avoid their intellectual property 
responsibilities by saying that they want to take aspects of their IP 
laws off the table just like the United States may do with our trade 
remedy laws.
  So it is not only the traditional sectors like farming that have a 
stake in this but also the most cutting edge industries that rely on 
patents and copyrights.
  Let me say that I am a strong supporter of our trade remedy laws. In 
fact, I think I may have irritated a number of my colleagues on the 
Finance Committee and in the full Senate by helping to lead the charge 
on the steel issue this Congress.
  It seems like my friend Senator Rockefeller and I kept bumping into 
one another as we testified before the International Trade Commission 
in both the injury and remedy phases of the steel case.
  I am a proponent of trade but I am against dumping of products into 
the United States. I know what the dumping of steel has done to 1,400 
laid-off steel workers and their families in Utah.
  Frankly, many of my colleagues might think my actions amounted to 
protectionism, but I think that the facts compelled the ITC and 
President Bush to conclude otherwise.
  I commend the strong action that President Bush took in response to 
the crisis in the steel industry. The steel 201 case was an example 
that our trade remedy laws can work.
  I part company with those who take the well-intentioned, but I think 
ultimately counter-productive, position that Congress should 
essentially get a second bite of the apple when it comes to the trade 
remedy laws.
  I have no doubt of the good intentions behind this amendment. But 
seems to me that you either believe, or disbelieve, in the wisdom and 
integrity of the fast track process. Either we have an up or down vote 
on the whole package or we don't. We should not be picking and choosing 
in a way that invites interminable debate and innumerable amendments.
  If you don't like an agreement--for any reason, not just the trade 
remedy laws but for the old-fashioned reason that it is just not a good 
thing for your state and your constituents, then by all means, vote 
against it.
  The Dayton-Craig amendment, if adopted, will invite similar responses 
from our trading partners. If we try to take these matters off the 
table, we can only guess what matters they will deem as inviolate.
  Let the trade negotiators negotiate. I have faith that no USTR--in 
either a Republican or Democratic administration--will ever give away 
the store on trade remedy laws. And, in the unlikely event that this 
occurs--the Constitution gives the Congress the final word.
  TPA is an essential tool for sound trade expansion policy, a tool we 
have been without since its expiration in 1994. For over a decade, the 
United States has too often sat on the sidelines while other nations 
around the world continued to form trade partnerships and lucrative 
market alliances. The lack of fast track has put the United States at a 
disadvantage during trade negotiations.
  I submit that this amendment does nothing less than hand trade 
opponents a tool to block future agreements that are overwhelmingly in 
America's interests.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dayton-Craig provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Further debate on amendment No. 3408.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3408.
  The amendment (No. 3408) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3411 to Amendment No. 3401

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it appropriate to send my amendment to the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3411 to amendment No. 3401.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To include the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public 
   Health as a principal negotiating objective of the United States)

       Section 2102(b)(4) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       (C) to respect the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and 
     Public Health, adopted by the World Trade Organization at the 
     Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14, 
     2001.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sometimes Democrats and Republicans can 
stand shoulder to shoulder with health advocates and industry 
representatives, find common ground, and develop constructive ideas to 
address some of the world's most pressing problems.
  We can do this today by supporting the World Trade Organization's 
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, adopted at its Fourth 
Ministerial Conference last November in Doha. ``TRIPS'' stands for 
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. The TRIPS Agreement is 
one of the agreements maintained by the World Trade Organization. TRIPS 
is the final word when it comes to international patent issues.
  In recent years, there has been some confusion over the TRIPS 
Agreement and the ability of poorer countries to gain access to 
affordable medicines to fight some of the worst plagues of our age--
including malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS. Many health advocacy groups, 
including Doctors Without Borders and the World Health Organization, as 
well as faith-based and secular groups like Oxfam, expressed concern 
that dying people in impoverished nations could not receive medicines 
because their countries were not being afforded the flexibility in the 
TRIPS Agreement to acquire them cheaply.
  Developing nations facing health emergencies reported political 
pressure when they tried to employ compulsory licensing--that is, the 
temporary suspension of a drug's patent and an order to a manufacturer 
to produce that drug

[[Page S4323]]

at a lower cost--or parallel importing, looking for the lowest price of 
a branded drug on the global market. The nations encountered threats of 
litigation through the WTO for trying to save the lives of their 
citizens. The poorest countries felt that our international trade 
agreements, written with the intent of lifting people out of poverty, 
were now being used against the poorest and most vulnerable when they 
needed them most.
  After the anthrax scare here in Washington and the East Coast the 
United States raised the possibility of issuing a compulsory license 
for Cipro--the drug proven to kill anthrax, to ensure that an adequate 
supply of the drug was available at a reasonable cost. HHS Secretary 
Thompson discussed publicly the steps that would be taken, pursuant to 
the TRIPS, to issue and implement such a license. Few people in the 
United States would question such a move to protect our nation's public 
health.
  Four people died from the recent anthrax outbreak in the United 
States. If an outbreak that results in four fatalities and another 
dozen infections is an emergency, what do we call a situation in which 
nearly 14,000 people will die every day from AIDS, tuberculosis, or 
malaria? If the TRIPS has the flexibility to accommodate the richest 
country in the world, it must be able to accommodate the poorest as 
well.
  The global health crisis we face today is unprecedented. The World 
Health Organization reports infectious diseases are the leading killer 
of young people in developing countries. These deaths occur primarily 
among the poorest people because they do not have access to the drugs 
and commodities necessary for prevention and cure. Approximately half 
of infectious disease mortality can be attributed to just three 
diseases--HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. These diseases cause over 300 
million illnesses and more than 5 million deaths each year.
  The WHO also reports that the economic burden is enormous. Africa's 
gross domestic product would be 32 percent greater if malaria had been 
eliminated 35 years ago. A nation can expect a decline in GDP of 1 
percent annually when more than 20 percent of the adult population is 
infected with HIV. Of the nearly 40 million people infected with HIV 
worldwide, roughly 28 million of them live in Africa. If we are serious 
about promoting wealth across the globe, global health must be at the 
forefront.
  Many poorer countries have shown that effective disease fighting 
strategies can reduce tuberculosis deaths five-fold. HIV infection 
rates can be reduced by 80 percent. Malaria death rates can be halved. 
But when a country has a health care budget of less than $50 per 
capita, the costs of the tools--and the drugs--to fight these diseases 
is often beyond reach. As a result, many studies estimate that 90 to 95 
percent of people infected with HIV in the developing world do not have 
access to the medicines they need for treatment or prevention.
  Recognizing the staggering global health crisis the world is now 
facing, the trade ministers of 142 countries decided to provide the 
clarity in the TRIPS Agreement that was so desperately needed. To 
ensure that all nations have access to lifesaving medicines, the WTO 
issued the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Among other things, 
it said,

  ``We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent 
Members from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, 
while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that 
the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner 
supportive of all WTO Members' right to protect health, and in 
particular, to promote access to medicines for all.''
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Declaration on TRIPS and 
Public Health be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. The declaration was immediately heralded across the 
globe as a tremendous achievement. It struck an honest balance between 
the legitimate interests of intellectual property protection and the 
preservation of public health. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick 
said immediately after Doha, ``The adoption of the landmark political 
declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health is a good example 
of developed and developing nations advancing common goals by working 
through issues together.'' He later added, ``We were pleased with this 
process . . . and we believe this declaration affirms that TRIPS and 
the global trading system can help countries address pressing public 
health concerns.''
  Alan Holmer, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and 
Manufacturers of America also welcomed the declaration, saying, ``The 
Declaration recognizes that TRIPS and patents are part of the solution 
to better public health, not a barrier to access. Without altering the 
existing rights and obligations under TRIPS, the declaration provides 
assurances that countries may take all measures consistent with the 
agreement to protect the health of their citizens.''
  I was very pleased with the adoption of this landmark declaration. 
Never before had the World Trade Organization taken such a bold stance 
that the protection of public health, particularly among the poorest in 
the world, was paramount. I want to commend U.S. Trade Representative 
Robert Zoellick for the leadership he displayed in ensuring this 
declaration's adoption, and WTO Director General Michael Moore for his 
tireless efforts in communicating the message of the declaration across 
the globe.
  In order to ensure that the U.S. trade negotiators fully support the 
implementation of the Doha Declaration in future negotiations, this 
amendment adds a single sentence to the section on negotiating 
objectives for intellectual property issues--``respect the Declaration 
on TRIPS and Public Health, as adopted by the World Trade Organization 
at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14, 
2001.'' This amendment directs our trade negotiations to support the 
declaration without reservation.
  This amendment, as critical as it is to the health of millions around 
the globe, is merely a small step in addressing this overwhelming 
issue. The United States must play a more active role in fighting these 
diseases in the developing world. We must contribute significantly more 
to the global AIDS fund at the United Nations. We must do more to help 
develop the health service infrastructure in poor countries so they can 
deliver and administer treatment and prevention programs. We must 
provide more resources to USAID and private organizations to enhance 
micro-enterprise efforts, build local economies, and empower 
individuals so they can take care of themselves.
  I'm pleased that this amendment can be accepted unanimously, because 
some issues are too important to be partisan. I want to extend special 
thanks to Senators Baucus and Grassley and their wonderful staffs for 
their leadership, and for their willingness to work so closely with me 
on this issue. They know we don't always see eye-to-eye on trade 
issues, but they recognize the importance of this issue and I know they 
share my concerns. I look forward to working closely with them in the 
future on this critical issue.

                               Exhibit 1

World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 
                           9-14 November 2001


  DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH--Adopted on 14 
                             November 2001

       1. We recognize the gravity of the public health problems 
     afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, 
     especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, 
     malaria and other epidemics.
       2. We stress the need for the WTO Agreement on Trade-
     Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS 
     Agreement) to be part of the wider national and international 
     action to address these problems.
       3. We recognize that intellectual property protection is 
     important for the development of new medicines. We also 
     recognize the concerns about its effects on prices.
       4. We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should 
     not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public 
     health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the 
     TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should 
     be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO 
     Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, 
     to promote access to medicines for all.
       In this connection, we reaffirm the right of WTO Members to 
     use, to the full, the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, 
     which provide flexibility for this purpose.

[[Page S4324]]

       5. Accordingly and in the light of paragraph 4 above, while 
     maintaining our commitments in the TRIPS Agreement, we 
     recognize that these flexibilities include:
       (a) In applying the customary rules of interpretation of 
     public international law, each provision of the TRIPS 
     Agreement shall be read in the light of the object and 
     purpose of the Agreement as expressed, in particular, in its 
     objectives and principles.
       (b) Each Member has the right to grant compulsory licenses 
     and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such 
     licenses are granted.
       (c) Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes 
     a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme 
     urgency, it being understood that public health crises, 
     including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria 
     and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency or 
     other circumstances of extreme urgency.
       (d) The effect of the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement 
     that are relevant to the exhaustion of intellectual property 
     rights is to leave each Member free to establish its own 
     regime for such exhaustion without challenge, subject to the 
     MFN and national treatment provisions of Articles 3 and 4.
       6. We recognize that WTO Members with insufficient or no 
     manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could 
     face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory 
     licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council 
     for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem and 
     to report to the General Council before the end of 2002.
       7. We reaffirm the commitment of developed-country Members 
     to provide incentives to their enterprises and institutions 
     to promote and encourage technology transfer to least-
     developed country Members pursuant to Article 66.2. We also 
     agree that the least-developed country Members will not be 
     obliged, with respect to pharmaceutical products, to 
     implement or apply Sections 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS 
     Agreement or to enforce rights provided for under these 
     Sections until 1 January 2016, without prejudice to the right 
     of least-developed country Members to seek other extensions 
     of the transition periods as provided for in Article 66.1 of 
     the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to 
     take the necessary action to give effect to this pursuant to 
     Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my intention to back the 
amendment. This amendment makes an important contribution to the 
underlying trade promotion authority bill.
  Before addressing the substance of the amendment, I put it in 
context. The Doha ministerial held in Qatar last year was a profound 
breakthrough for the United States and the World Trade Organization. 
For the first time in many years, over 130 nations came together to 
launch a new round of international trade negotiations. This is no 
small achievement, as virtually every action taken during the Doha 
ministerial had to be done by consensus. These nations strongly 
believed a new round of international trade negotiations was in their 
best interests. I agree it is in their best interests, and it is in the 
best interests of the United States. I also think it is in our best 
interests to get these negotiations underway and give the President the 
authority he needs to negotiate the best deals for our workers and 
small and large businesses.
  During the WTO ministerial at Doha, the members of the organization 
adopted a political declaration that highlights the provisions in the 
TRIPS agreement that provide members with the flexibility to address 
public emergencies, such as the epidemics of HIV, tuberculosis, and 
malaria. The objectives on intellectual property, which are part of 
this bill, were drafted before completion of the Doha ministerial. 
Senator Kennedy's amendment updates these objectives to take into 
account the important declaration on public health made at the Doha 
meeting. It is a good addition to the bill. I am pleased to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I highly compliment the Senator from 
Massachusetts. This is an extremely important statement. Millions of 
people in the world are suffering from HIV/AIDS, and the current patent 
the companies have, as important it is, is a measure that should be 
relaxed so people in many parts of the world get assistance.
  The amendment recognizes the special declaration concerning public 
health that was adopted last November in Doha. The special declaration 
provided assurance to poor countries facing the immense challenges of 
dealing with public health emergencies caused by pandemics of 
infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, that measures necessary to address 
such crises in these countries can be accommodated by the WTO TRIPS 
Agreement, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 
Property Rights.
  This assurance complements the numerous commitments that the United 
States Government, and its public and private sectors have made to help 
these countries cope with the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  WTO members also used the declaration to reaffirm their commitment to 
effective intellectual property standards such as those in the TRIPS 
Agreement. The declaration recognizes that effective intellectual 
property standards serve an important public health objective of 
stimulating development of new drugs.
  I highly recommend this amendment to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, numbered 3411.
  The amendment (No. 3411) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The majority leader asked me to announce there will be no 
more rollcall votes today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allen are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for the past several days, we have been 
debating the merits of granting fast-track trade negotiating authority 
to the President. Today, I would like to illustrate the importance of 
this measure and that of its companion, Trade adjustment assistance, to 
my home State of Montana.
  Montana's role in the global economy is directly linked to our 
success in passing this important trade package. More importantly, if 
my State is to grow economically, we must secure opportunities beyond 
our borders.
  Those opportunities represent risk, growth, change, and challenge for 
a State that is highly reliant on export markets and highly sensitive 
to imports.
  Just as the founders of Montana--fur trappers, gold prospectors, 
cattle ranchers, hardrock miners--were driven west in pursuit of trade 
opportunities, so, too, must the citizens of modern Montana seek new 
markets. In fact, some would say that our viability in the 21st century 
is contingent upon our ability to expand and compete in the global 
marketplace.
  To further this endeavor, we must negotiate responsible trade 
agreements that help Montana workers, business, farmers, ranchers and 
entrepreneurs.
  At the same time we must recognize some of the problems associated 
with trade, which include worker dislocation or intensified 
competition, must also be addressed.
  I believe that fast track and trade adjustment assistance are 
critical to economic growth and strength of Montana. Let me tell you 
why.
  First, Montana exports nearly a half billion dollars in products a 
year. This includes $260 million in agricultural commodities, $100 
million in industrial machinery, $24 million in chemical products, and 
$37 million in wood and paper products.
  Second, as a key State in the Rocky Mountain Trade Corridor we are 
expanding more to Canada and Mexico--our first and second largest 
trading partners. Respectively, these countries

[[Page S4325]]

import more than $300 million and $34 million of Montana products with 
China, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom next in line.
  With new trade agreements that open markets to Montana products and 
re-adjust some of the current trade inequities, my State's economy 
stands to grow and prosper.
  Within this same context, the principle trade negotiating objective 
of the fast-track legislation calls on our negotiators to remove 
barriers that decrease market opportunities for Montana exports or 
distort imports that put producers at an unfair advantage. These 
barriers include governmental regulatory measures such as price 
controls and reference pricing which deny full market access for United 
States products.
  Take, for example, the Canadian Wheat Board. The Government of Canada 
grants the Canadian Wheat Board special monopoly rights and privileges 
which disadvantage U.S. wheat farmers and undermine the integrity of 
the trading system.
  These rights insulate producers from commercial risk because the 
Canadian Government guarantees its financial operations, including its 
borrowing, credit sales to foreign buyers, and initial payments to 
farmers. As a result, the Canadian Wheat Board takes sales from U.S. 
farmers and prices drop.
  The negotiating authority granted the President that fast track is 
aimed at stopping these unjust trade practices.
  Some folks say they don't want any new trade agreements until the old 
ones are fixed, I like the ring of that, but sometimes it is not 
terribly practical. I say, you can't fix something from the sidelines, 
you must be at the table. Fast track is a means to that end. If you 
want to fix an old agreement, clearly the other side is going to want 
to fix the old agreement from its perspective, too. It is never a free 
lunch.
  The bill also strives to ensure that trade agreements afford small 
businesses equal access to international markets, equitable trade 
benefits, expanded export market opportunities, and provide for the 
reduction or elimination of trade barriers that disproportionately 
impact small business.
  Let me illustrate what effective negotiations at the WTO mean for 
Main Street Montana.
  A company in Bozeman could be able to ship more trailers for mining 
equipment to Latin America.
  Discussion on pharmaceuticals could help companies like All American 
Pharmaceutical in Billings and Technical Sourcing International in 
Missoula.
  Montana's tech corridor in Bozeman could seek clarification on 
European manufacturing standards for electronics, increasing market 
opportunity for small technology businesses.
  Aviation firms such as Blue Sky Aviation in Lewistown, Garlick 
Helicopters and Tamarak Helicopters in the Bitteroot Valley could see a 
normalization in requirements for aviation products.
  Medical standards could be addressed helping Glacier Cross of 
Kalispell enter new markets.
  And Lawyer Nursery could spend less time fighting phytosanitary 
barriers and focus more on providing seeds and seedling trees to 
developing nations.
  The bottom line is that good jobs will be created in Montana if we 
are willing to give our negotiators the strong hand needed to secure 
sound trade agreements.
  In addition to small business owners, Montana's agricultural industry 
stands to benefit from sound trade agreements. For agriculture, the 
goal is to obtain competitive opportunities for U.S. exports of 
agricultural commodities in foreign markets substantially equivalent to 
the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets.
  The fast-track bill includes a concrete set of trade objectives for 
agriculture that targets my five key concerns.
  First, we must reduce tariffs to levels that are the same as or lower 
than those in the United States. These are the same tariffs that block 
Montana beef exports to Korea and Japan.
  Second, we must eliminate all export subsidies on agricultural 
commodities while maintaining bona fide food aid and export credit 
programs that allow the U.S. to compete with other foreign export 
promotion efforts. As you well know, the EU maintains the lion's share 
of export subsidies--60 times more than the United States. How can we 
ever expect a level playing field if we are undersold time and again by 
government-backed competitors?
  Third, we must allow the preservation of programs that support family 
farms and rural communities but do not distort trade.
  Currently we are engaged in passing a new farm bill. This bill seeks 
to reflect and respond to the counter-cyclical nature of our farm 
economy. It strives to limit production through sound conservation 
programs and maintains trade provisions, including the Export 
Enhancement Program and Market Access Program, which help our products 
overseas.
  The U.S. exported over $53 billion last year. However, our trade 
policy will only be effective if the commodity support and conservation 
programs of the farm bill are balanced. We cannot afford for one leg of 
the stool to be weaker than the others. Without family farmers, 
increased trading opportunities are irrelevant.
  Fourth, we must eliminate state trade enterprises wherever possible. 
Montanans know far too well the effects of competing with the Canadian 
Wheat Board. As I mentioned above, we must bring price transparency and 
competition to the marketplace. The Canadian Wheat Board is nothing 
close to that. Anything short of this flies in the face of fair trade.
  And fifth, we must develop rules to prevent unjustified sanitary or 
phytosanitary restrictions not based on sound science. For three 
decades we fought to pry open the Chinese market to Pacific Northwest 
wheat due to TCK. That was a real struggle. I spent a lot of time on 
that. It was difficult to get the Chinese to listen to us. They finally 
cracked open a little bit. Now we are struggling with markets in Chile 
and Russia that place arbitrary sanitary barriers on U.S. exports of 
beef, pork, and poultry.
  I will closely monitor any upcoming trade negotiations to ensure that 
these goals are met. Further, I will not hesitate to call for the 
repeal of fast-track trading authority or pursuing a resolution to 
limit fast track, at any time during the process if these objectives 
are not met.
  Let me share a few more points that make the case for fast track in 
my State. In order to address and maintain Montana's competitiveness in 
the global economy, the bill directs the President to preserve the 
ability of the U.S. to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including 
antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws.
  Montana has benefited from these laws. These laws have been used 
against unfair, or a surge in, imports of softwood lumber from Canada 
and lamb from Australia and New Zealand. In addition, our wheat 
industry is considering launching a case against the Canadian Wheat 
Board.
  These laws are not protectionist. Far from it. They simply ensure 
that Montana workers, agricultural producers, and firms, can compete 
fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of reciprocal trade 
concessions.
  These laws are designed to help other countries play fair. If all 
countries played fair, our trade laws would not be necessary. They are 
there only to help make sure that when other countries are not playing 
by the rules of the road we have ways to protect ourselves against 
unfair foreign trade barriers. All our trade remedy laws, as you know, 
Mr. President, are totally WTO legal. They are totally consistent with 
WTO.
  On a related note, I am often approached about the problem of a 
strong dollar for commodities and manufacturing. The overvalued dollar 
is certainly a problem, and I do not have the perfect solution today 
that balances these concerns with Treasury's intent to maintain a 
strong economy and control inflation.
  However, within this bill, the administration is directed to work 
with our trading partners to draw up a blueprint to deal with the trade 
consequences of significant and unanticipated currency movements and to 
scrutinize whether a foreign government is engaged in a pattern of 
manipulating its currency to promote a competitive advantage in 
international trade.

[[Page S4326]]

  Rest assured, I recognize these concerns, and I believe this is a 
step toward finding a solution and not an easy one to resolve but 
certainly a major step forward.
  In Montana we know the value of preserving our environment while 
optimizing the use of our natural resources. At the same time, we 
cannot afford to compete with shoddy worker and environmental rights.
  This measure brings that message to the world recognizing that trade 
and environmental policies are mutually supportive: That we should seek 
to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international 
options of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's resources. 
And, it promotes respect for worker rights and supports efforts to 
crack down on the exploitative child labor.
  This bill is different from past fast-track legislation because it is 
the first to ever seek provisions that aim to ensure that parties to 
the agreements not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in their 
domestic environmental and labor laws as an encouragement for trade. It 
is a first, and major development. It also works to establish rules to 
prevent frivolous investor claims that contravene the public good.
  I have a few words about part two of this package, the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program or TAA. This is a program with a simple 
but admirable objective: to assist workers injured by imports to adjust 
and find new jobs. many Montana workers are now employed and many firms 
still in business thanks to TAA.
  Take for example the 221 employees who lost their jobs as a result of 
the suspension of operations at the ASARCO lead bullion facility in 
East Helena. It was a bitter blow to that community when that 
announcement was made. Due to the decline in the mining and mineral 
processing industries in the Western U.S., these workers faced few 
prospects for re-employment in a similar sector.
  Thanks to income support provided by trade adjustment assistance, and 
NAFTA-TAA, 50 percent of these workers are involved in or did seek 
training--many at the Helena College of Technology and a few at heavy 
equipment operating school.
  They are learning everything from trucking to computer technology. 
Now nearly 42 percent have found full-time employment. Workers at Plum 
Creek Timber in Seeley Lake are similarly taking advantage of this 
program.
  TAA is often seen as the last resort, but it also provides a chance 
for companies to retool. This is especially true of TAA for firms, a 
related program that provides assistance to over 10 small companies in 
Montana to help them readjust and effectively compete with imports.
  With TAA for firms, Montola Growers is researching new markets for 
its safflower oil, Tele-Tech Corporation is designing new products and 
print ads for its sophisticated electronic devises, Thirteen Mile Lamb 
and Wool Company is designing new garments for manufacture by contract 
knitters, and Pyramid Lumber is improving its milling efficiency.
  Without TAA for firms, we would see closed signs on many business 
doors. Unfortunately, more worthy projects exist than funding to 
support them. For that reason, I support significantly increased 
funding in order for this program to continue and expand its good work.
  Additionally, this trade adjustment assistance bill includes a new 
provision that will offer up to $10,000 in cash assistance to Montana 
farmers and ranchers injured by imports. Let me be clear, this is a 
real opportunity to retool and reform a family farming operation, to 
make it competitive and sound, for generations to come. Like trade 
adjustment assistance for firms, this program is a means to keep an 
operation in business and keep our Montana families on their land.
  One final item tucked neatly away in the TAA title is a provision to 
protect Montana sugarbeet growers from unfair trade practices. We all 
recall the black eye that stuffed molasses gave the industry, and we 
can not afford to suffer from such blatant circumvention again. This 
provision allows the Secretary of Agriculture to monitor imports of 
sugar to ensure that they do not circumvent the existing quota.
  If they do, the Secretary will report to the President who can then 
``snap-back'' the offending commodity into the appropriate tariff line. 
This should send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate 
efforts to manipulate the trading system to the disadvantage of our 
sugar producers.
  The trade package before us today will help Montana move toward a 
greater role in the global economy. I hope my colleagues will feel the 
same about their own constituencies and lend their support to this 
important matter.
  Mr. President, I thank you for listening. I yield the floor and 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________