[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 64 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4527-S4530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set
aside for the purpose of introducing an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3441 to Amendment No. 3401
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 3441 to amendment No. 3401.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit a country that has not taken steps to support the
United States efforts to combat terrorism from receiving certain trade
benefits, and for other purposes)
Section 204(b)(5)(B) of the Andean Trade Preference Act, as
amended by section 3102, is amended by adding the following
new clause:
``(viii) The extent to which the country has taken steps to
support the efforts of the United States to combat terrorism.
``Section 4102 is amended by striking the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(a) Eligibility for Generalized System of Preferences.--
Section 502(b)(2)(F) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2462(b)(2)(F)) is amended by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``or such country has not taken steps to
support the efforts of the United States to combat
terrorism.''.
``(b) Definition of Internationally Recognized Worker
Rights.--Section 507(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2467(4)) is amended--''.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment to the
trade package that is currently before us. I strongly support the
intent of both the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized
System of Preferences. These programs seek to help the Andean countries
of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and other developing nations, by
applying preferential treatment to their exports. We agree to reduce or
eliminate tariffs on imports from these countries in order to help them
develop a stronger economy.
These programs benefit both sides. They improve the lives of the
exporting countries' citizens through improved economic opportunities
that result from open access to the U.S. market--the best market in the
world.
For example, since the Andean Trade Preference Act went into effect
in 1991, the Andean nations have experienced $3.2 billion in new output
and $1.7 billion in new exports. This has led to the creation of more
than 140,000 legitimate jobs in the region.
But this act expires, and we must renew it. These programs help the
United States by developing better markets for our exports. If we can
help developing countries increase economic growth and prosperity,
they, inevitably, will demand more imports, which provide U.S.
manufacturers with more consumers for our products. This, of course, is
good for the U.S. economy.
Another important benefit from the Andean Trade Preference Act is
that by providing people of these regions with employment opportunities
in legitimate businesses, they will, hopefully, not participate in the
narcotic business that is rampant in parts of those areas. This will
contribute to the stability of their region and the stability of our
hemisphere.
It is clear that the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Generalized
System of Preferences help both sides. Since we are giving a benefit to
these countries, we are also asking something in return, to ensure that
we do not help any country that works against our interests in other
ways.
For this reason, we have established, in the underlying bill,
conditions that a country must meet in order to qualify as a
beneficiary. Conditions we have required in the past include that a
beneficiary not be a Communist-controlled country. We have insisted
that a country not be one that has or will expropriate the property of
U.S. citizens. There must be a rule of law so that if an investment is
made in that country, they will be safe from having it expropriated.
In the Andean trade bill before us, we add several new conditions.
For example, we require that the President consider the extent to which
countries are committed to the World Trade Organization and are
participating in negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas.
This will ensure their commitment to free trade.
The President also must consider the extent to which they have helped
us in our counter-narcotics efforts and anti-corruption efforts before
providing these trade benefits. These and other conditions play an
important role in ensuring we do not help countries that may turn
around and work against us or our citizens in the future.
As I reviewed the list of criteria we have established, I noticed a
glaring omission. We are in the middle of a war on terrorism, yet there
is no requirement that a country support our efforts in this battle for
freedom. It is clear we cannot win this war alone. We need the help of
our friends around the world to track down terrorists and cut off
funds. More than $100 million in assets of terrorists and their
supporters have been frozen around the world. The United States has
frozen about $30 million of this money. The rest has been cut off by
various allies.
We need cooperation like this to defeat this enemy. Therefore, I am
offering an amendment to the trade package that establishes a
requirement that a country support our efforts in the war on terrorism
in order to receive beneficiary status under the Andean Trade
Preference Agreement or Generalized System of Preferences.
The kind of help each country can give to us will vary, and it may
depend on the circumstances a particular country faces and the
opportunities presented to that country. Some will help us militarily.
Some will help cut off funds. Others will share intelligence. Some may
do so publicly, others privately. It is even possible that a country
might not have the opportunity to provide us with anything but moral
support. So I do not think it is appropriate to specify the kind of
help a country must give. But I do believe we must make it clear that
we expect any country receiving these preferences to do what they can,
and what they are requested to do, and that the President take that
into consideration when determining these preferences.
I hope my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that we are
able to
[[Page S4528]]
prosecute this critical war effectively with the help of nations that
will benefit from our preferential treatment.
Also, as we increase commerce with these countries--which we surely
will because of these good trade agreements--we want to make sure they
are cooperating so that they will help us keep any contraband product
out of America, as we would also expect not to take contraband into
their country.
So I think these are good additions to this bill. We have certain
conditions already. We are in the fight for our life for the freedom of
our country, and we want every country with whom we have commerce, and
where there is an ingress and an egress, to work with us to make sure
we do not have any kind of terrorist activity in our country or in our
hemisphere.
We have already suffered enough. September 11 has changed our way of
life. It has changed our attitude. It has changed so much about what is
necessary to protect our country. So we must ask every country--
especially countries in this hemisphere, but every country--that we
will have trade with, and commerce with, countries where we will go in
and out, and work with them on a basis of trust, to help us in whatever
way we request.
I think it is little to ask, and certainly it will be in their best
interest, as well as ours, for terrorists not to come in and be active
in their countries. That will hurt them in their efforts to represent
their people and have free markets in their countries.
So I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment at the
appropriate time. I will certainly speak later as we move on with this
bill.
I certainly hope we are going to pass this bill. The Andean Trade
Preferences and the General System of Preferences are so important to
our country. There are 130 free trade agreements in the world. The
United States is party to only 3. That hurts our exporters. It hurts
our jobs market. And it hurts countries that we could do more trade
with if we did not have the tariffs that would keep prices from being
as low as possible for all of our consumers.
So we need this bill. We need to give the President the ability to
promote trade and to make trade agreements. I hope we will move on
toward finishing this bill next week and giving the President another
tool to open markets and strengthen our economy and help other
countries strengthen theirs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid
aside so that we can have other amendments offered through the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 3442 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 3442 to amendment No. 3401.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the United States Trade Representative to identify
effective trade remedies to address the unfair trade practices of the
Canadian Wheat Board)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. TRADE REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO CANADIAN WHEAT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On February 15, 2002, the United States Trade
Representative issued an affirmative finding under section
301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that the acts, policies, and
practices of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat
Board are unreasonable and burden or restrict United States
commerce.
(2) In its section 301 finding, the United States Trade
Representative expressed a desire for long-term reform of the
Canadian Wheat Board. However, since concluding on February
15, 2002, that the Canadian Government and the Canadian Wheat
Board are engaged in unfair trade practices, the United
States Trade Representative has not undertaken any initiative
to seek reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. Moreover, the
United States Trade Representative has not imposed any trade
remedy that would provide United States wheat farmers with
prompt relief from the unfair trade practices.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the United States Trade Representative should identify
specific trade remedies that will provide United States wheat
farmers with prompt relief from the unfair trade practices of
the Canadian Wheat Board in addition to efforts to seek long-
term reform of the Canadian Wheat Board.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--No later than October 1, 2002,
the United States Trade Representative shall report to
Congress a specific plan for implementation of specific trade
remedies to provide United States wheat farmers with prompt,
real relief from the unfair trade practices of the Canadian
Wheat Board, and a specific timetable to seek long-term
reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, ensuring that there is no
undue delay.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will describe this amendment very
briefly. It deals with the wheat trade dispute we have had with Canada.
Wheat growers in my State, on behalf of wheat growers all around our
country, brought a Section 301 case alleging unfair wheat trade by
Canada.
Following an investigation by the International Trade Commission, the
U.S. Trade Ambassador's office came to the following conclusion, and I
quote:
The [Canadian Wheat Board] has taken sales from U.S.
farmers and is able to do so because it is insulated from
commercial risks, benefits from subsidies, has a protected
domestic market and special privileges, and has competitive
advantages due to its monopoly control over a guaranteed
supply of wheat. The wheat trade problem is long-standing and
affects the entire U.S. wheat industry.
That is from the U.S. Trade Ambassador's office.
When the U.S. Trade Ambassador decided that our farmers were victims
of unfair trade from Canada, his office said they were committed to
four trade remedies, but they would explicitly not impose tariff rate
quotas as a penalty on the Canadians. They said, instead, that they
would pursue other approaches.
First, they say they will take the Canadians to the WTO. Of course,
that means years and years and years of talk, and likely no action.
Second, they said they would examine the possibility of initiating
U.S. countervailing duty and antidumping petitions. They can self-
initiate those cases. I don't think they will. They seldom ever self-
initiate countervailing duty or antidumping cases. I hope they do. I
would encourage them to do it. But I am not holding my breath. I expect
they will--as most trade officials have over decades and decades--fail
to self-initiate such a remedy.
Third is to identify specific impediments preventing United States
wheat from entering Canada and present these to the Canadians. Well,
these impediments have been around for a long while. I have seen them
firsthand in a trip I took to the Canadian border, riding in a little
orange truck with a friend of mine. We were stopped at the border and
couldn't take the durum wheat into Canada. We did it just as a
demonstration. All the way to the border, we found Canadian 18-wheel
trucks bringing wheat south, but you couldn't get any wheat into
Canada. I think the Canadians know all about the impediments they have
erected they don't need to have the U.S. trade ambassador coming to
them with a list.
Fourth, the trade ambassador hopes to seek a solution to the problem
of the WTO agricultural negotiations, which are scheduled to be
completed by 2005. A fair number of farmers will be out of business by
then. My amendment today says what we would like is that a remedy be
provided sooner than that.
You know, when the U.S. Trade Ambassador announced that he was not
willing to impose tariff rate quotas at this time, here is what the
president of the Canadian Wheat Board president said: ``Since the
United States did not impose tariffs, we have successfully come through
our ninth trade challenge.'' In other words, he said that the fact that
the United States found them guilty of violating trade rules meant
nothing, because no tariffs have been imposed.
Well, that does not sit right with me. My amendment expresses the
sense of Congress that prompt action is in order. And it sets forth a
reporting requirement: No later than October 1, 2002, the United States
Trade Representative shall report to the Congress, first, a plan for
implementation of specific trade remedies to provide United States
wheat farmers with prompt relief from the unfair trade
[[Page S4529]]
practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and, second, a specific timetable
to seek long-term reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, ensuring there is
no undue delay.
It is just not acceptable for the U.S. Trade Representative to tell
U.S. farmers who put together their own money to file expensive 301
petitions: Yes, you are right that Canada is playing unfairly, but we
are not going to do anything about it anytime soon.
This amendment says we demand action. We will expect a report on
October 1 from the trade ambassador about what specific remedies he
will propose on behalf of American farmers who are now victims of this
unfair trade.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I might offer amendments on behalf of other
Senators, and that in each instance the amendments to be set aside and,
once the amendment has been reported by number, the reading be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3430 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerry, I call up
amendment No. 3430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Kerry, proposes
an amendment numbered 3430 to amendment No. 3401.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that any artificial trade distorting barrier
relating to foreign investment is eliminated in any trade agreement
entered into under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of
2002)
Section 2102(b) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
(3) Foreign investment.--The principal negotiating
objective of the United States regarding foreign investment
is to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade distorting
barriers to trade-related foreign investment. A trade
agreement that includes investment provisions shall--
(A) reduce or eliminate exceptions to the principle of
national treatment;
(B) provide for the free transfer of funds relating to
investment;
(C) reduce or eliminate performance requirements, forced
technology transfers, and other unreasonable barriers to the
establishment and operation of investments;
(D) ensure that foreign investors are not granted greater
legal rights than citizens of the United States possess under
the United States Constitution;
(E) limit the provisions on expropriation, including by
ensuring that payment of compensation is not required for
regulatory measures that cause a mere diminution in the value
of private property;
(F) ensure that standards for minimum treatment, including
the principle of fair and equitable treatment, shall grant no
greater legal rights than United States citizens possess
under the due process clause of the United States
Constitution;
(G) provide that any Federal, State, or local measure that
protects public health, safety and welfare, the environment,
or public morals is consistent with the agreement unless a
foreign investor demonstrates that the measure was enacted or
applied primarily for the purpose of discriminating against
foreign investors or investments, or demonstrates that the
measure violates a standard established in accordance with
subparagraph (E) or (F);
(H) ensure that--
(i) a claim by an investor under the agreement may not be
brought directly unless the investor first submits the claim
to an appropriate competent authority in the investor's
country;
(ii) such entity has the authority to disapprove the
pursuit of any claim solely on the basis that it lacks legal
merit; and
(iii) if such entity has not acted to disapprove the claim
within a defined period of time, the investor may proceed
with the claim;
(I) improve mechanisms used to resolve disputes between an
investor and a government through--
(i) procedures to ensure the efficient selection of
arbitrators and the expeditious disposition of claims;
(ii) procedures to enhance opportunities for public input
into the formulation of government positions; and
(iii) establishment of a single appellate body to review
decisions in investor-to-government disputes and thereby
provide coherence to the interpretations of investment
provisions in trade agreements; and
(J) ensure the fullest measure of transparency in the
dispute settlement mechanism, to the extent consistent with
the need to protect information that is classified or
business confidential, by--
(i) ensuring that all requests for dispute settlement are
promptly made public;
(ii) ensuring that--
(I) all proceedings, submissions, findings, and decisions
are promptly made public;
(II) all hearings are open to the public; and
(III) establishing a mechanism for acceptance of amicus
curiae submissions from businesses, unions, nongovernmental
organizations, and other interested parties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 3415 to Amendment No. 3401
Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Torricelli, I call up amendment No.
3415.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Torricelli,
proposes an amendment numbered 3415 to Amendment No. 3401.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the labor provisions to ensure that all trade
agreements include meaningful, enforceable provisions on workers'
rights)
On page 244, beginning on line 19, strike all through page
246, line 15, and insert the following:
(A) to ensure that a party to a trade agreement with the
United States does not fail to effectively enforce its
environmental or labor laws;
(B) to ensure that parties to a trade agreement reaffirm
their obligations as members of the ILO and their commitments
under the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work and its Follow-up;
(C) to ensure that the parties to a trade agreement ensure
that their laws provide for labor standards consistent with
the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work and the internationally recognized labor rights set
forth in section 13(2) and constantly improve those standards
in that light;
(D) to ensure that parties to a trade agreement do not
weaken, reduce, waive, or otherwise derogate from, or offer
to waive or derogate from, their labor laws as an
encouragement for trade;
(E) to create a general exception from the obligations of a
trade agreement for--
(i) Government measures taken pursuant to a recommendation
of the ILO under Article 33 of the ILO Constitution; and
(ii) Government measures relating to goods or services
produced in violation of any of the ILO core labor standards,
including freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining (as defined
by ILO Conventions 87 and 98); the elimination of all forms
of forced or compulsory labor (as defined by ILO Conventions
29 and 105); the effective abolition of child labor (as
defined by ILO Conventions 138 and 182); and the elimination
of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (as
defined by ILO Conventions 100 and 111); and
(F) to ensure that--
(i) all labor provisions of a trade agreement are fully
enforceable, including recourse to trade sanctions;
(ii) the same enforcement mechanisms and penalties are
available for the commercial provisions of an agreement and
for the labor provisions of the agreement; and
(iii) trade unions from all countries that are party to a
dispute over the labor provisions of the agreement can
participate in the dispute process;
(G) to strengthen the capacity of United States trading
partners to promote respect for core labor standards (as
defined in section 13(2));
(H) to strengthen the capacity of United States trading
partners to protect the environment through the promotion of
sustainable development;
(I) to reduce or eliminate government practices or policies
that unduly threaten sustainable development;
(J) to seek market access, through the elimination of
tariffs and nontariff barriers, for United States
environmental technologies, goods, and services; and
(K) to ensure that labor, environmental, health, or safety
policies and practices of the parties to trade agreements
with the United States do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably
discriminate against United States exports or serve as
disguised barriers to trade.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 3443 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I
call up amendment No. 3443.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Reed, proposes
an amendment numbered 3443 to amendment No. 3401.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S4530]]
(Purpose: To restore the provisions relating to secondary workers)
On page 9, beginning on line 24, strike all through page
10, line 9, and insert the following:
``(11) Downstream producer.--The term `downstream producer'
means a firm that performs additional, value-added production
processes, including a firm that performs final assembly,
finishing, or packaging of articles produced by another
firm.''
On page 12, beginning on line 19, strike all through line
24, and insert the following:
``(24) Supplier.--The term `supplier' means a firm that
produces component parts for, or articles considered to be a
part of, the production process for articles produced by a
firm or subdivision covered by a certification of eligibility
under section 231. The term `supplier' also includes a firm
that provides services under contract to a firm or
subdivision covered by such certification.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 3440 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I
call up amendment No. 3440.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for Mr. Nelson of
Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 3440 to amendment No.
3401.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit tariff reduction authority on certain products)
At the end of section 2103(a), insert the following new
paragraph:
(8) Products subject to antidumping and countervailing duty
orders.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to a product that
is the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order
at the time of the agreement referred to in paragraph (1),
unless the agreement provides that as a term, condition, or
qualification of the tariff concession, the tariff reduction
will not be implemented before the date that is 1 year after
the date of the termination or revocation of such antidumping
or countervailing duty order with respect to all exporters of
such product.
At the end of section 2103(b), insert the following new
paragraph:
(4) Products subject to antidumping and countervailing duty
orders.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a product that is
the subject of an antidumping or countervailing duty order at
the time of the agreement referred to in paragraph (1),
unless the agreement provides that as a term, condition, or
qualification of the tariff concession, the tariff reduction
will not be implemented before the date that is 1 year after
the date of termination or revocation of such antidumping or
countervailing duty order with respect to all exporters of
such product.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 3445 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3445, offered by
Senator Bayh.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for Mr. Bayh, proposes
amendment No. 3445 to amendment No. 3401.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the ITC to give notice of section 202
investigations to the Secretary of Labor, and for other purposes)
At the end of title VII, insert the following:
SEC. 702. NOTIFICATION BY ITC.
(a) In General.--Section 225 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
added by section 111, is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 225. NOTIFICATION BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.
``(a) Notification of Investigation.--Whenever the
International Trade Commission begins an investigation under
section 202 with respect to an industry, the Commission shall
immediately notify the Secretary of that investigation.
``(b) Notification of Affirmative Finding.--Whenever the
International Trade Commission makes a report under section
202(f) containing an affirmative finding regarding serious
injury, or the threat thereof, to a domestic industry, the
Commission shall immediately notify the Secretary of that
finding.''.
(b) Industry-wide Certification.--Section 231(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974, as added by section 111, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Industry-wide certification.--If the Secretary
receives a petition under subsection (b)(2)(E) on behalf of
all workers in a domestic industry producing an article or
receives 3 or more petitions under subsection (b)(2) within a
180-day period on behalf of groups of workers producing the
same article, the Secretary shall make a determination under
subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1) of this section with respect to
the domestic industry as a whole in which the workers are or
were employed.''.
(c) Coordination with Other Trade Provisions.--
(1) Recommendations by itc.--
(A) Section 202(e)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2252(e)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``, including
the provision of trade adjustment assistance under chapter
2''.
(B) Section 203(a)(3)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2252(a)(3)(D)) is amended by striking ``, including
the provision of trade adjustment assistance under chapter
2''.
(2) Assistance for workers.--Section 203(a)(1)(A) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(1)(A)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) After receiving a report under section 202(f)
containing an affirmative finding regarding serious injury,
or the threat thereof, to a domestic industry--
``(i) the President shall take all appropriate and feasible
action within his power; and
``(ii) the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
Agriculture, or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate,
shall certify as eligible for trade adjustment assistance
under section 231(a), 292, or 299B, workers, farmers, or
fishermen who are or were employed in the domestic industry
defined by the Commission if such workers, farmers, or
fishermen become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated not more
than 1 year before or not more than 1 year after the date on
which the Commission made its report to the President under
section 202(f).''.
(3) Special look-back rule.--Section 203(a)(1)(A) of the
Trade Act of 1974 shall apply to a worker, farmer, or
fisherman if not more than 1 year before the date of
enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of
2002 the Commission notified the President of an affirmative
determination under section 202(f) of such Act with respect
the domestic industry in which such worker, farmer, or
fisherman was employed.
(d) Notification for Farmers and Fishermen.--
(1) Farmers.--Section 294 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
added by section 401, is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 294. NOTIFICATION BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.
``(a) Notification of Investigation.--Whenever the
International Trade Commission (in this chapter referred to
as the `Commission') begins an investigation under section
202 with respect to an agricultural commodity, the Commission
shall immediately notify the Secretary of the investigation.
``(b) Notification of Affirmative Determination.--Whenever
the Commission makes a report under section 202(f) containing
an affirmative finding regarding serious injury, or the
threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing an
agricultural commodity, the Commission shall immediately
notify the Secretary of that finding.''.
(2) Fishermen.--Section 299C of the Trade Act of 1974, as
added by section 501, is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 299C. NOTIFICATION BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.
``(a) Notification of Investigation.--Whenever the
International Trade Commission (in this chapter referred to
as the `Commission') begins an investigation under section
202 with respect to fish or a class of fish, the Commission
shall immediately notify the Secretary of the investigation.
``(b) Notification of Affirmative Determination.--Whenever
the Commission makes a report under section 202(f) containing
an affirmative finding regarding serious injury, or the
threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing fish or a
class of fish, the Commission shall immediately notify the
Secretary of that finding.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
____________________