[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4793-S4818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued

  Mr. REID. What is the order before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last 10 minutes of debate are reserved by 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3527

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the question before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3527 by the Senator from South 
Carolina to amendment No. 3447 offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia.

[[Page S4794]]

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the purpose of my amendment is because we 
are on the verge of passing fast-track legislation that would tie the 
hands of Senators who wish to amend trade agreements that come before 
Congress. It is imperative that we as members of the legislative branch 
become more active in the negotiation of those agreements. We must 
establish the means for Senators and Representatives to be consulted on 
trade negotiations in order to allow them to advise the administration 
on how to best protect the interests of their constituents.
  Based upon the trade act of 1974, members of the Senate Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are able to serve as 
congressional advisers for trade policy. Members of those committees 
can also exercise oversight on the implementation of trade agreements. 
But the rest of the Members of the Senate and the House are left out in 
the cold when it comes to being able to sit in on important trade 
negotiations and being consulted on the contents of a trade agreement 
before it is sent to Congress for approval.
  My amendment corrects this situation by enlarging the congressional 
oversight group so that the group would be comprised of 11 Senators and 
11 Representatives who do not serve on the Finance Committee or the 
Ways and Means Committee. The congressional oversight group can then 
serve with the members of the committee of jurisdiction to advise 
negotiators in the executive branch on how to craft a trade agreement 
that promotes fair trade practices and protects the interests of our 
constituents.

  My amendment does not take any powers away from the committees of 
jurisdiction. To the contrary, the amendment contains specific language 
that directs the cochairman of the congressional oversight group to 
open their meetings and to share all information with members of the 
Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.
  These committees and the congressional oversight group should work 
together to promote consultation between the executive and legislative 
branches on trade agreements. I do trust the Finance Committee to 
consult with other Senators on the contents of trade agreements, but as 
Ronald Reagan once said, ``Trust but verify.''
  Let the committees of jurisdiction do their work, but let us also 
allow a broader membership of the House and Senate to participate in 
the consultations on trade agreements. The particular needs of our 
individual States may not be apparent to members of the Finance 
Committee.
  Incidentally, Madam President, proponents of the fast-track bill have 
argued that we need to pass this legislation to allow the President to 
negotiate trade agreements. But the President already has the power to 
negotiate agreements with foreign countries. We do not need legislation 
to give the President his inherent powers.
  What fast track really does, however, is to cut out the Senate and 
the House of Representatives from proposing amendments to trade 
agreements. If Congress cannot amend trade agreements, it is all the 
more important for Members of Congress to become more involved in the 
negotiating process by broadening the membership of the congressional 
oversight group, as my amendment does. Congress may have a better 
chance at influencing prospective trade agreements to take into account 
the interests of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I advised my colleague from West 
Virginia several hours ago that I was going to move to table his 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, one, I didn't want to speak against the 
amendment of my friend and colleague and move to table it without him 
having a chance to make his presentation.
  I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee, and the Finance 
Committee does have principal jurisdiction over trade. If we are going 
to have a trade advisory committee that would advise the administration 
and is composed of members appointed by the Senate President pro 
tempore, with the advice of the leaders, as proposed in this amendment, 
it also says to exclude members of the Finance Committee. I cannot 
imagine doing that. It sets up a separate committee, but we have a 
committee of jurisdiction that deals with trade. Now it says we are 
going to have a separate committee that will do the same thing. We 
don't do that in Appropriations or in the Judiciary Committee or Energy 
or in any other committee.
  I think the committee process needs to work. This is as if to say 
let's have a duplicate committee outside of the Finance Committee. I 
think it is a serious mistake, a bad precedent. Maybe we should have 
two committees for everything, and if somebody doesn't like what comes 
out of the original committee, we can go to the other committee. I 
cannot imagine legislation that says let's have a separate committee 
and exclude members of the Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to 
support a motion to table the amendment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      (Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.)

                                YEAS--66

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that the following votes be limited to 10 minutes 
each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I call for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment No. 3448.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, there is no time under the rule for Senators 
to speak before their amendment is called up. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Byrd, who has two amendments, be given 5 minutes on each 
of those

[[Page S4795]]

amendments; and following that, we have 2 minutes, equally divided, on 
each amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, let me see if I 
understand. For this amendment, we are saying 5 minutes on each side, 
and all subsequent amendments 2 minutes on each side.
  Mr. REID. One minute on each side.
  Mr. NICKLES. I won't object.
  Mr. BUNNING. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is noted.
  Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I renew the unanimous consent request. I renew my unanimous 
consent request as amended by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Conversations 
will be taken off the floor so the Senator can be heard.


                           Amendment No. 3448

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting 
a resolution of disapproval----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senate will be in order. Conversations will be taken off the 
floor. May we have quiet in the Chamber so the Senator can be heard.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting 
a resolution of disapproval against a trade agreement that it finds 
objectionable, unless the Finance Committee chooses to report such a 
resolution to the full Senate. A resolution of disapproval enacted by 
the Senate would withdraw the application of fast track procedures to 
any bill the President submits to the Congress to implement a trade 
agreement.
  Although, at first glance, the bill before us appears to permit a 
Senator to introduce a resolution of disapproval rejecting fast track 
procedures applied to a trade agreement that is brought back to the 
Senate by the President, the reality is that such a resolution most 
probably would never come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
  This is because the bill states that, once a resolution of 
disapproval is introduced and referred to the Senate Finance Committee, 
it will not be in order for the full Senate to consider the resolution 
if it has not been reported by the committee. In other words, a 
disapproval resolution cannot be forced to the floor through a 
discharge of the Senate Finance Committee. The way this bill is 
currently written, if a resolution of disapproval is not reported out 
of the Senate Finance Committee, it might as well never have been 
introduced. The resolution may simply lie there until it dies.
  This means that, so long as the Senate Finance Committee endorses the 
President's agreement, the views of the rest of the Senate are 
irrelevant. Enacting fast-track in this bill prevents the Senate from 
exercising its Constitutional responsibility to reject or modify trade 
agreement that are not in the best interests of the American people.
  It is imperative that every Senator retain his or her right to 
introduce a resolution of disapproval that can be considered in the 
light of day by the full Senate. To this end, my amendments require 
that, upon introduction, any resolution of disapproval--including an 
extension resolution of disapproval--will be referred not only to the 
Senate Committee on Finance, but also to the Senate Committee on Rules 
and Administration. The Rules Committee is essential to this process, 
because it is charged with making the rules and procedures that govern 
this institution, and its expertise is essential to our enforcement of 
commitments undertaken by our trading partners in the trade agreements 
negotiated by the President.
  Under these amendments, each of these committees will be required to 
report the resolution of disapproval that has been referred to it 
within 10 days of the date of its introduction and, if either of these 
committees fails to report the resolution of disapproval within that 
time, either of these committees shall automatically be discharged from 
further consideration of the resolution. The resolution shall then be 
placed directly on the Senate calendar. Once the disapproval resolution 
is placed on the Senate calendar, any Senator may make a motion to 
proceed to consider that resolution, and the motion to consider the 
resolution shall not be debatable.
  If enacted as currently written this bill would effectively cut a 
majority of Senators out of the trade regulation process, preventing 
them from correcting sweeping changes in trade law that could unfairly 
affect the lives of their constituents who rely on the Senate to 
protect their interests.
  I can't support surrendering the rights and prerogatives, the duties 
and responsibilities of the Senate to any President, Democrat or 
Republican. We in the Congress have an obligation to strike down trade 
agreements that adversely affect the American people. But it is 
impossible for us to do so if we do not provide ourselves the 
opportunity to adequately review, debate, amend, or reject their 
provisions as we are rightly empowered to do under the Constitution of 
the United States. These amendments ensure that we retain the power to 
modify or reject trade agreements that are not in the best interests of 
the United States and, in so doing, protect the economic well-being of 
the Nation and of the people we represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It 
does away with the very purpose of this legislation before us, and that 
is to give the President credibility at the negotiating table and to 
have a process by which Congress will consider the results of 
negotiation. So it strikes at the disapproval resolution process. This 
amendment adds language, then, directing the procedural disapproval 
resolutions be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. 
The effect of the amendment on trade promotion authority is threefold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  Senators kindly take conversations off the floor so the Senator can 
be heard. The Senator has a right to be heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. First, it wrests control over consideration of 
procedural disapproval resolutions from the Finance Committee and gives 
it to the Committee on Rules and Administration; second, to make 
procedural disapproval resolutions open for debate with automatic 
discharge from committee of jurisdiction; third, to provide for an 
unlimited number of procedural disapproval resolutions to be considered 
during any given session of Congress.
  The intent is clear. It is an attempt to weaken trade promotion 
authority and create multiple and unlimited opportunities to derail 
trade promotion authority procedures during any given session of 
Congress. If the amendment is agreed to, a single Senator can put 
forward a resolution which would stop a particular trade negotiation in 
its tracks. We all know there are some Senators who do not like trade 
promotion authority and do not even like international trade. Should 
this amendment be agreed to, you can be assured that the Senate will be 
considering multiple procedural disapproval resolutions during any 
Congress.
  Let us be clear. This amendment is designed to weaken trade promotion 
authority procedures, procedures which have effectively worked for over 
50 years in advancing international trade interests. It really comes 
down to this: Either you believe in the proven effectiveness of the 
trade promotion authority procedures or you do not. If you do, then I 
strongly urge you to oppose this clever yet potentially devastating 
amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

[[Page S4796]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all Senators should be aware that we have 
10-minute votes scheduled. The leaders have both indicated they would 
like the votes to be completed shortly after the 10-minute time. 
Everyone should be aware of that or they will not be counted.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 3449 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized. There are 10 minutes of debate on the 
amendment, evenly divided.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
second amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 3451

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 3451 
offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am sorry, amendment number?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3451 offered by the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment 
is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                Amendments Nos. 3452 and 3453 Withdrawn

  Mr. BYRD. Do I have some remaining amendments?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thought I had withdrawn them. If I have not, I ask 
unanimous consent that I may withdraw them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.


                    Amendment No. 3458, As Modified

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin 
amendment No. 3458 be modified with the text of amendment No. 3505, and 
that the amendment be considered and agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3458), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       After section 3201, insert the following:

     SEC. 3204. DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL.

       (a) Extension of Temporary Duty Reductions.--
       (1) Heading 9902.51.11.--Heading 9902.51.11 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (2) Heading 9902.51.12.--Heading 9902.51.12 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''; and
       (B) by striking ``6%'' and inserting ``Free''.
       (3) Heading 9902.51.13.--Heading 9902.51.13 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (4) Heading 9902.51.14.--Heading 9902.51.14 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Limitation on Quantity of Imports.--
       (1) Note 15.--U.S. Note 15 to subchapter II of chapter 99 
     of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``from January 1 to December 31 of each 
     year, inclusive''; and
       (B) by striking ``, or such other'' and inserting the 
     following: ``in calendar year 2001, 3,500,000 square meter 
     equivalents in calendar year 2002, and 4,500,000 square meter 
     equivalents in calendar year 2003 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, or such greater''.
       (2) Note 16.--U.S. Note 16 to subchapter II of chapter 99 
     of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``from January 1 to December 31 of each 
     year, inclusive''; and
       (B) by striking ``, or such other'' and inserting the 
     following: ``in calendar year 2001, 2,500,000 square meter 
     equivalents in calendar year 2002, and 3,500,000 square meter 
     equivalents in calendar year 2003 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, or such greater''.
       (c) Extension of Duty Refunds and Wool Research Trust 
     Fund.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Customs Service shall 
     pay each manufacturer that receives a payment under section 
     505 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
     200) for calendar year 2002, and that provides an affidavit 
     that it remains a manufacturer in the United States as of 
     January 1 of the year of the payment, 2 additional payments, 
     each payment equal to the payment received for calendar year 
     2002 as follows:
       (A) The first payment to be made after January 1, 2004, but 
     on or before April 15, 2004.
       (B) The second payment to be made after January 1, 2005, 
     but on or before April 15, 2005.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 506(f) of the Trade and 
     Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) is amended by 
     striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2006''.
       (3) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     and is appropriated out of amounts in the general fund of the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(2)(B) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2002.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. 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 Montana.


                           Amendment No. 3461

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, once again, will the Chair please state 
the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3461 offered by the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  Under the agreement, there is 1 minute equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and 
Senator Dodd and others. It is an important and simple request for our 
trade negotiators to respect the role of Congress and elected State and 
local officials to determine the nature and scope of significant public 
services.
  Regardless of my colleagues' view on TPA, it is one thing to delegate 
congressional authority on trade negotiations, but it is a serious leap 
beyond that to delegate constitutional responsibilities of elected 
officials when it comes to determining what public services should be 
privatized.
  This amendment would establish as a principal negotiating objective 
that

[[Page S4797]]

trade agreements should not include a commitment by the United States 
to privatize significant public services, such as Social Security, 
national security, public health and safety, and education.
  This is simple and straightforward. We should not be turning over, to 
the delegation of unelected trade negotiators, determinations about 
issues such as Social Security and national security. That should be 
determined here, with debate on the floor of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, and by duly elected officials. Straightforward, 
simple.
  Mr. President, as I have explained, my amendment establishes as a 
negotiating objective that trade agreements exclude commitments by the 
Untied States to privatize significant public services. The amendment 
specifies four types of public services that represent core functions 
of Government and that are specifically protected. These include 
national security, Social Security, public health and safety, and 
education.
  I want to make clear for the record, however, that these four areas 
are not the only types of public services that would be protected by my 
amendment. Since this legislation establishes only broad negotiating 
objectives, not highly detailed requirements, I have not listed each 
and every affected public service with great specificity. However, it 
is my intention that the amendment would apply to a wide range of 
public services. These include, for example, public transportation, 
public utilities, the Untied States Postal Service, and law 
enforcement, as well as other significant public services provided at 
the federal, state and local levels.
  For a public service to be protected under the amendment, it would 
have to be ``significant.'' This is designed to ensure that the 
amendment not be interpreted too broadly to apply to even small and 
relatively marginal types of services. For example, if a local 
government decides to maintain a small snack bar at a local pool, I 
would not conclude that this is a significant public service that could 
not be opened to private competition. However, the provision of water 
or sewer services, which are provided on large scales by a substantial 
number of municipalities, and are important for the protection of 
public health, would be covered.
  In any case, again note that the amendment deals only with trade 
negotiating objectives. It would not completely tie negotiators' hands 
or trigger any lawsuits. It simply says that our objective should be to 
leave the provision of significant public services as a decision for 
elected officials, not distant, unelected trade bureaucrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. And what 
troubles me most about the amendment is that it unnecessarily carves 
out privatization of particular service sectors from negotiations. 
These service categories include national security, Social Security, 
public health and safety, and education, as well as other significant 
public services.
  This language is so broad that it could be used by our trading 
partners to close off market access to U.S. service exports. This 
situation could be especially troublesome in the telecommunications 
sector where many of our trading partners maintain government-owned 
telecom companies.
  Including this language, which is very sweeping, in the trade 
promotion authority bill could severely undermine our ability to open 
these markets. That is why I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Helms
     Inouye
     Shelby
  The motion was agreed to.


             Amendments Nos. 3463, 3464 And 3465 Withdrawn

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hollings, I withdraw 
amendments Nos. 3463, 3464, 3465.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
withdrawn.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President. What is the regular order?


                           Amendment No. 3470

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3470 by the Senator from 
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the chairman 
and ranking member of this committee. I do support the underlying bill. 
I have tried to be helpful through this process in passing this bill.
  However, there are maritime workers in our Nation who have been 
adversely affected because of a recent ruling. They are not entitled to 
benefits under this bill. Instead of picking up employment checks, or 
paychecks, they will be picking up unemployment checks, unless this 
amendment passes. So for port communities such as New Orleans and 
Houston and New Jersey and New York and Seattle, where maritime workers 
could qualify, this amendment will help. It only costs $10 million. It 
lasts for only 3 years. Out of an $8 billion bill, our maritime workers 
deserve some help. They have earned it; they deserve it. That is what 
my amendment does.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Landrieu 
amendment No. 3470 violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of the 
act for the purposes of the pending 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.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

[[Page S4798]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Helms
     Inouye
     Shelby
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 3521

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Jeffords. On behalf 
of Senator Jeffords, I offer amendment No. 3521.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not think there is any objection to 
this amendment. This is in proper order, and I ask for it to be 
accepted.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3521.
  The amendment (No. 3521) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3467

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the next amendment 
is No. 3467 by Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am a first-generation American. My 
father fled persecution from Russia, and I am always most proud of our 
country when we promote human rights.
  This is an amendment that simply says surely one of our objectives 
should be to promote human rights and democracy, and we call on our 
trading partners to strive to meet these human rights standards.
  There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 governments in the 
world today that systematically practice torture. At the very minimum, 
we can at least say one of our objectives in trade policy will be to 
promote human rights and democracy. That is all this amendment does. I 
think it means our country leads with our own values. I think it is 
important we make that statement, and I hope there will be a strong 
vote in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Opportunity is the greatest of human rights anywhere in 
the world. Trade is all about opportunity, so this whole bill is all 
about human rights. This amendment upsets a carefully crafted 
bipartisan compromise dealing with these complex relationships between 
international trade, workers' rights, and the environment, and it does 
so by undermining the fundamental purpose and proven effectiveness of 
our trade promotion authority.
  This amendment offers vague new standards stating that the countries 
should strive to protect ``internationally recognized civil, political, 
and human rights,'' without even defining those rights. It sets our 
negotiators up for failure and jeopardizes this bill.

  If we really want to promote democracy and human rights abroad, then 
we should all oppose this amendment and pass the bill because history 
shows that time and again open markets help foster a more open 
political system and the human rights that go with it. Mexico is an 
example. There is Taiwan and South Korea, all sorts of examples of 
human rights being better today than they were 50 years ago, all 
because of more open markets and international trade.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following the vote on the Wellstone 
amendment, we will immediately go to a vote on the substitute that is 
now before the Senate. I ask if that needs a rollcall vote because we 
are going to have to vote on the bill itself, so I do not know if we 
need to vote twice. I again ask, do we need a rollcall vote? I ask 
Senators to make that decision during the time we are voting on the 
Wellstone amendment. It would seem to me this would be a good time to 
voice vote that and wait until there is final passage on the bill 
itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, earlier today 
I saw some language that indicated that the committee, in an 
amendment--I assume it was going to be included in the managers' 
amendment, or under the rubric of ``technical amendments''--was making 
direct appropriations. I ask the manager of the bill right here and 
now, is there any amendment in either the technical amendments or the 
managers' amendment that purports to make a direct appropriation?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I inform the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
the answer is no, there is not.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have the list in front of me. As I recall discussions 
of this list, I don't remember anything that has any appropriations in 
it whatsoever and it is not our intent to appropriate money in these 
amendments.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I might further respond to my good friend from West 
Virginia, I have just been informed we don't believe there are any such 
provisions, but we are scrubbing it right now to make sure. We don't 
believe, at this point.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think we ought to have a quorum call so we 
can take a good look and be absolutely sure.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3467

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone 
amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want a vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Brownback), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell

[[Page S4799]]


     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brownback
     Helms
     Inouye
     Lieberman
     Shelby
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3467.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3467) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now at the 
point where we could vote on the substitute; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee has met with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance 
Committee and they have worked out the problem that existed. Is my 
understanding correct?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. The language is being changed so it makes a reference to an 
authorization, not to an appropriation. It earlier made appropriations 
in this bill. That was not the intent, Mr. Baucus has assured me. That 
change has been made now, and the full understanding between the 
chairman of the Finance Committee and myself and the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee is that there was no intent to make an 
appropriation. Therefore, I have no objection to the request by the 
majority whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative 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, I send a technical amendment to the desk 
amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to, and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3548 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of Senators, 
several references to appropriations have been found in the language. 
But I am constrained to believe, on the assurances of the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, that these 
were inadvertences. So we have stricken several of them.
  Just to make doubly sure that this bill does not make any 
appropriations, I offer the following amendment, which, is agreed to, 
would save a lot of time:
       At the end, add the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
     direct appropriation may be made under this Act.''

  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3548) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators.


                            u.s. trade laws

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, nearly two-thirds of the Senate 
sent a letter to President Bush emphasizing that new trade agreements 
must not weaken trade remedy laws such as antidumping and 
countervailing duty law.
  The fast track bill we are considering today reemphasizes that point. 
Section 2(c)(9) of the bill instructs the President to preserve, in all 
trade negotiations, the ability of the United States to enforce 
rigorously its trade remedy laws and to avoid any agreement that would 
require weakening of the current U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty 
and safeguard remedies.
  Today, I would like to make two key points about this provision. 
First, the Committee on Finance regards strict adherence to the section 
2(c)(9) directive as critical in advancing the economic interests of 
the United States in future trade agreements. The bill's language here 
is unambiguous in the sense that, rather than establishing preservation 
of our trade remedy laws as simply a ``negotiating objective,'' it 
bluntly states that the President ``shall'' preserve those laws.
  Second, the negotiating instruction encompasses any weakening of the 
existing remedies, whether at the level of statute, regulation or 
agency practice. This means that the President ``shall'' reject any new 
international rule or obligation whose acceptance would lead to relief 
under our existing trade laws becoming more difficult, uncertain, or 
costly for domestic industries to achieve and maintain over time.
  I am very concerned about the Administration's decision in Doha last 
year to put U.S. trade laws on the negotiating table. Many of our 
trading partners have only one goal to weaken our trade laws so they 
can gain an unfair competitive advantage. A number of WTO Members have 
put forward some specific proposals. I want to highlight today a few 
examples of new international obligations that have been proposed by 
WTO Members, and that would obviously result in a weakening of U.S. 
trade laws, including: One, a ``public interest'' rule politicizing and 
encumbering the administrative processes under which these laws are 
currently applied; two, a requirement to exempt from trade remedy 
measures items alleged to be in ``short supply'' in the domestic 
market; three, a so-called ``lesser duty'' rule limiting antidumping 
and countervailing duties to some amount less than the calculated 
margin of dumping or subsidy, such as the amount supposedly necessary 
to offset the injury; and four, any extension of faulty dispute 
resolution models such as Chapter 19 of the NAFTA.
  Mr. President, there are other examples, but these are some of the 
key concerns that I have and I know many of my colleagues share. I also 
want to emphasize that this is very much a bipartisan issue. Members on 
both sides of the aisle feel strongly about protecting U.S. trade laws. 
And along those lines, I believe my good friend and ally in protecting 
U.S. trade laws, would like to express some of his concerns about this 
issue.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I certainly share the Senator's concern regarding 
the potential for new trade agreements to weaken U.S. trade remedy 
laws, in particular the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These 
essential laws level the playing field on which our firms and workers 
compete internationally, and serve the crucial function of offsetting 
and deterring some of the most harmful unfair trade practices affecting 
international trade today.
  The steady leadership the Senator has provided on this issue has been 
admirable, and I certainly hope the message has gotten through. It 
would be a serious mistake indeed to think that an agreement or package 
of agreements can be successfully presented to

[[Page S4800]]

Congress for approval, under fast-track rules or otherwise, if it 
includes any weakening changes to our trade remedy laws.
  I believe the Senator has accurately captured the general definition 
of a ``weakening'' change, and I agree fully with the examples he has 
laid out. I want to ask about some other proposals which have already 
surfaced at this early stage of the WTO negotiations, and which in my 
view must be rejected under the standard set out in section 2(c)(9).
  These proposals include:
  One, changes to the rules for ``sunset'' reviews of antidumping and 
CVD measures which would make it more difficult to keep relief in 
place; two, additional constraints or criteria for dumping 
calculations, in areas where current WTO rules and U.S. law vest 
discretion in the administering authority; and, three, special rules 
and standards that would make it easier for a particular group of 
countries, such as developing countries, to utilize injurious dumping 
or subsidies as a means of promoting their own industries at our 
expense.
  Am I correct in my view that accepting any such changes, as some 
trading partners have requested, would weaken our existing trade 
remedies?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, those are certainly changes that would weaken our 
current remedies, and which would fail the test set out in section 
2(c)(9). I also understand that my colleague and friend, Senator 
Rockefeller, who has worked very closely with me on the defense of our 
trade remedy laws over the years, has some points to add concerning 
section 2(c)(9).
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I also wish to clarify with my colleagues that 
section 2(c)(9) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net 
weakening'' provision. In other words, the President is directed to 
reject any new international obligation whose acceptance would impair 
our current trade remedies in the way you have described--by making 
relief costlier, more uncertain, or otherwise harder to achieve and 
maintain over time. An agreement that includes such changes must be 
rejected, and it is no answer--insofar as section 2(c)(9) and the 
intent of the Congress is concerned--to contend that the agreement in 
question also includes some ``strengthening'' provisions.
  That would include any revisions that intended to ``strengthen'' the 
disciplines governing other countries' trade laws, including those in 
the developing world.
  I personally believe that until the United States has a documented 
record of challenging those foreign trade laws at the WTO--and for some 
inexplicable reason we do not--there is no justification for saying 
existing WTO rules are not sufficient to ensure due process and 
transparency in foreign trade laws.
  Additionally, I think it is important to clarify that this 
negotiating directive does not preclude U.S. negotiators from 
addressing the very serious shortcomings that have become apparent in 
the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system. As explained in the 
Finance Committee's report on the TPA measure, in a series of decisions 
involving trade remedy measures, the WTO Appellate Body and lower 
dispute settlement panels have fabricated U.S. obligations which our 
negotiators never accepted and have blatantly disregarded the 
discretion which the Uruguay Round negotiators intended for national 
investigating authorities to retain.
  These WTO tribunals have violated their mandate not to increase or 
reduce the rights and obligations of WTO Members; have imposed their 
preferences and interpretations, and those of a biased WTO Secretariat, 
on the United States and on other WTO Members; and have issued 
decisions with no basis in the legal texts they supposedly were 
interpreting.
  I believe this may be because other countries have been far more 
aggressive about challenging our trade laws at the WTO than we have 
been in challenging theirs. The effect has been to upset the careful 
balance achieved in the Uruguay Round by adding new, and wholly 
unwarranted, constraints on the use of trade remedies.
  Before we vote on the bill, am I correct in understanding that 
section 2(c)(9) does not preclude a forceful U.S. agenda to address the 
problems plaguing WTO dispute settlement?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is perfectly correct. I might add that the 
TPA bill includes several additional provisions designed to ensure a 
forceful U.S. response to the WTO dispute settlement problem, and 
section 2(c)(9) presents no barrier whatsoever in that regard.


    livestock and meat products as perishable and cyclical products

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy regarding 
the coverage of trade promotion authority. My understanding is that TPA 
includes special provisions regarding perishable and cyclical products. 
It is my understanding that this language would clearly cover livestock 
and fresh meat products as they are perishable and cyclical 
agricultural products.
  I believe that the language and the coverage are clear, but want to 
make sure that our negotiators are well aware of our intent and 
coverage of this legislation and the expectations we have for inclusion 
in future trade agreements.
  Reasonable people know that fresh meat is perishable, but many people 
may not be aware that livestock can be perishable as well. Cattle ready 
for slaughter, for example, must be processed within two to three weeks 
of reaching their optimal weight. Once above the optimal weight, cattle 
gain fat and not muscle. With this quality loss, livestock producers 
suffer drastic price discounts that can wipe out their profits. Clearly 
meat production and livestock are also cyclical. Again, taking cattle 
as an example, the price follows a 10-year-cattle-cycle--the expansion 
and contraction of the nation's cattle herd have historically affected 
cattle prices.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague's 
interpretation. It seems quite clear to me. This is important to the 
meat and livestock industry. For example, TPA addresses eliminating the 
practices of foreign governments that adversely affect the trade of 
perishable and cyclical products, and the elimination of such practices 
in the livestock and meat sector would be to the advantage of U.S. 
producers. No reasonable person would suggest that the definition of 
perishable and cyclical agricultural products would fail to cover 
livestock and meat production.
  TPA also calls for improving import relief mechanisms to recognize 
the special characteristics of perishable and cyclical products, which 
would include livestock and meat. Such improvements to import relief 
mechanisms could include faster and more effective time frames for 
imposing import relief measures as well as improved means of 
determining industry support in import relief investigations. Along the 
same lines, TPA provides that U.S. import relief measures for 
perishable and cyclical agricultural products should be as accessible 
and timely as those of other countries.
  TPA also states that the U.S. Trade Representatives, prior to 
commencing negotiations concerning agriculture, shall work to develop a 
position on perishable and seasonal products that will lead to an 
international consensus on the treatment of these products in dumping 
and safeguard investigations ``and in any other relevant areas.'' I 
understand that livestock and meat production would be included in 
these negotiations as they are clearly covered under the definition of 
perishable and cyclical agricultural products.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments 
and I agree completely with them that the definition of perishable and 
cyclical agricultural products includes livestock and meat production. 
It is clear to me that there can be no other reading of the legislation 
and I believe that our colleagues intended for these products to be 
covered. We expect our negotiators, to include these products under 
these provisions.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also agree with my colleagues, views on 
this important issue. The intention of the members on this matter is 
clear: The definition of perishable and cyclical agricultural products 
includes livestock and meat production.


              Enforcement of Proper Labeling of Basa Fish

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Every authorization of fast-track authority since the 
Trade Act of 1974 has been accompanied by a strong confirmation of 
Congressional

[[Page S4801]]

intent that U.S. law will be vigorously enforced to ensure that the 
increased trade enabled by agreements reached under the negotiating 
authority is fair.
  This year, Congress has responded to a failure to enforce existing 
law by twice enacting provisions to ensure that imported species of 
fish are not illegally passed off in the U.S. market as ``catfish.'' 
The Food and Drug Administration has consistently authorized only North 
American Freshwater Catfish to be marketed as ``catfish'' in the United 
States, a practice that has existed commercially for over thirty years. 
U.S. law now prevents other species from using the term catfish in 
labeling or advertising. Let me be clear, the vast majority of this 
imported species of fish has never, and I repeat, never, reached 
American consumers under any legal name. It has reached the consumer in 
significant quantities only being misbranded as ``catfish.''
  Congress most recently addressed this illegal misbranding in the farm 
bill, known officially as the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002, which was signed by the president last week. The fraud of 
misbranding seafood is referred to as ``economic adulteration.'' Under 
U.S. law, economic adulteration is illegal at every level of commerce. 
Misbranding at the time of importation, or changing a legal name after 
importation, is a violation of U.S. law. These laws have simply not 
been enforced. The relevant provision in the 2002 farm bill now makes 
it clear that false labeling or advertising of another species of fish 
as ``catfish'' is illegal. There is also an original provision in the 
2002 farm bill that applies to seafood, including the species that have 
been misbranded as ``catfish.'' These provisions of law are a clear 
expression of congressional intent that applicable law must be 
vigorously enforced.
  This is a necessary condition to the success of open trade.
  I would like to confirm that in granting Trade Promotion Authority 
for trade agreements, Congress intends that: Government agencies with 
relevant enforcement authority will exercise their authority sua sponte 
to prevent the illegal practices that have plagued our catfish 
industry; effective enforcement action will be undertaken at all levels 
of trade to prevent the economic adulteration that has adversely 
affected U.S. catfish farmers and the consuming public; and enforcement 
action will include addressing violations of law with respect to 
misbranding and other improper labeling, Customs marks of origin, 
including misbranding that indirectly indicates a false origin, false 
or misleading representations in advertising and other practices.
  We recognize that problems occur when our markets are open. However, 
our enforcement authorities must address those problems quickly and 
effectively in order to ensure that the increased competition from 
imports into our market is on fair terms. It is only fair competition 
that provides the benefits we seek for our economy, and that helps our 
producers remain internationally competitive.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I can confirm the Senator's understanding, and I would 
like to express my personal support with respect to preventing the 
unfair practices that have threatened our U.S. catfish industry. Our 
clear intent is that U.S. law be fully enforced, not only as it 
concerns our catfish farmers but all U.S. producers, to ensure that 
trade is fair.


               Certification of Trade-Affected Industries

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk with 
Senator Grassley about the trade adjustment assistance bill and the 
important amendments that have been offered by Senators Bayh and 
Edwards.
  These amendments would provide automatic certification for trade-
affected industries. I believe that the Secretary of Labor already has 
the discretion to certify particular industries under the TAA program. 
And I believe that she would have the discretion under the TAA bill we 
are now considering.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. As the Senator knows, I support the trade adjustment 
assistance program, and recognize that--beyond some individual 
companies and workers--there are also particular industries that face 
dislocation as a result of trade. The recent finding by the 
International Trade Commission regarding the steel industry further 
emphasizes this point. In that vein, there appears to be a need for 
further coordination between ITC determinations and Federal assistance 
given to workers impacted by trade.
  Mr. BAUCUS. This is an important issue. As a Senator Edwards has 
spoken about many times, the textile industry has been adversely 
affected by increased imports and by companies shifting production 
overseas.
  And the steel industry, as Senator Bayh has emphasized, suffers from 
a flood of unfairly trade imports. Indeed, many steel products are 
covered by the President's recent decision to impose restrictions under 
our safeguard laws.
  So in this case, the ITC has already made a finding of trade-related 
injury. I would encourage the Secretary of Labor to expeditiously 
implement procedures regarding industry-wide certification.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree there needs to be a stronger tie between ITC 
findings and worker assistance--specifically Trade Adjustment 
Assistance. It is my understanding that the ITC is currently required 
to notify the Secretary of Labor of any affirmative injury 
determination, and that the Secretary must give expedited consideration 
to petitions for TAA certification by workers in the domestic industry.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In closing, let me add that I appreciate the help of you 
and your staff in working to reach a bipartisan compromise on this 
package. I hope we can continue to move together in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am also pleased that we were able to come to 
agreement on a bipartisan trade package. It was the right thing to do 
for our nation's farmers, workers, and companies.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment 
which recognizes the importance of the automotive industry to the U.S. 
economy and to our international trade agreements. The auto industry is 
a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, directly or indirectly supporting 
one out of every 15 jobs in America. Auto manufacturing and related 
industries account for 6.5 million jobs nationwide, nearly a quarter 
million of which are in my home state of Ohio. Ohio boasts the 2nd 
highest auto industry employment in the country, and that industry 
represents $22.6 billion in wages and benefits for Ohioans. 
Furthermore, the production assembly line that characterizes the modern 
automobile industry was invented in the American Midwest and is now 
used in factories across the globe.
  Currently, the U.S. automotive market is the most open and 
competitive in the world. Our allies in Europe and our trading partners 
in developing nations alike have free access to American markets and 
consumers. Unfortunately, that is not true for American auto 
manufacturers. United States companies face significant pre-meditated 
trade barriers in the same countries that enjoy free trade and exports 
to the United States. In fact, the automotive industry trade deficit 
has accounted for one-third of the total U.S. trade deficit since 1992.
  These results do not represent the intent or spirit of the free trade 
agreements signed in recent years, such as NAFTA and GATT, and the time 
has come to remove the barriers to free and open trade for American 
automobile manufacturers.
  I know firsthand how difficult it is to open trade for American auto 
manufacturers. I vividly recall the free trade mission that I led in 
1997 to South Korea. I spent two days with top government leaders and 
private sector groups urging them to open their markets to non-Korean 
made automobiles. Quite frankly, although they listened, I felt I was 
talking to a brick wall and received absolutely no satisfaction 
whatsoever. On the contrary, the Korean officials were proud to report 
that their imports doubled yet the actual number of those imports was a 
mere fraction of Korea's total auto sales.
  That was 1997 and today--May 22, 2002--5 years later there has been 
no progress since I visited. Mr. President, I would have hoped that 
things would have improved. Last year, South Korea exported more than 
1.5 million vehicles to the world, while importing only 7,747. Also 
last year, South Korea exported more than 618,000 vehicles to the U.S., 
while importing a mere 2,854 from

[[Page S4802]]

the U.S. In fact, South Korea sells more cars in the U.S. per day than 
U.S. manufacturers sell in South Korea all year.
  In addition to unfair trade regulations, the Korean authorities use 
another barrier to prevent their citizens from buying American cars: 
intimidation. According to auto industry sources, Koreans caught 
driving American-made cars can anticipate such punitive measures as 
getting pulled over by the police, being subject to more parking 
violations, and even experiencing more frequent and severe tax audits 
than their neighbors who drive Korean-made automobiles. Why would any 
Korean citizen choose to drive an American vehicle when faced with 
consequences like these?
  Currently, the Baucus-Grassley TPA bill includes 14 major objectives 
for U.S. trade negotiators. The first of these objectives is to expand 
competitive market opportunities for U.S. exports in foreign markets by 
reducing or eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers that prevent U.S. 
goods from entering these markets. Our amendment states that as trade 
agreements are negotiated in the future, U.S. trade negotiators should 
specifically aim to open up export markets for U.S. automakers and 
vehicle parts manufacturers.
  Opening up export markets for U.S. automakers and parts manufacturers 
is critical, because in the future, the majority of growth in these 
industries will not be in the U.S., but in the developing nations of 
Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Our amendment will tell trade 
negotiators that they need to make sure that U.S. automakers are in a 
position to compete fairly in these high-growth markets.
  Today, sales of new passenger vehicles account for nearly 4 percent 
of total U.S. GDP. Clearly, the automotive industry is important to the 
economic growth and stability of our economy and we must take action to 
protect and strengthen an industry so vital to our nation.
  Our amendment will make a difference for American manufacturers, 
consumers and our economy as a whole. Without it, one of America's most 
important manufacturing industries could soon take second place to 
foreign competitors. Opening new markets for our products helps create 
jobs and stimulate our economy, both of which are especially important 
as we seek to move out of recession. I urge my colleagues to join in 
this growth and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the trade 
promotion authority bill.
  I am glad that we are finally debating this legislation. For years, 
the Senate has given lip service to the need for TPA. It's about time 
we got down to it.
  I believe in free and fair trade, and I believe that TPA is crucial 
to our nation's economic future, and it has the potential to benefit 
the United States greatly. Trade creates better jobs. It creates 
economic opportunity. And while some people see free trade as a zero-
sum game where there are winners and losers, they're wrong. Healthy 
trade makes winners out of everyone and enables nations to make the 
best use of their resources. Strong, vibrant trade provides a rising 
tide that lifts all boats.
  We understand this in Kentucky. Last year, we sold over 48.8 billion 
worth of exports in more than 100 nations abroad. This includes over $1 
billion in agricultural products. Mr. President, this provided a real 
and meaningful boost to our local economy.
  Best of all, countries that trade together do not fight and are less 
likely to work against each other. Instead, trade helps bring nations 
together in working toward a common goal of mutual economic benefit 
instead of armed conflict. In the wake of September 11th, this is more 
important than ever.
  The United States needs Trade Promotion Authority. It expired almost 
eight years ago, and our trade policy has been adrift since them. If 
America is going to continue as the world's economic superpower, and to 
remain fully engaged in the international marketplace, we need to give 
President Bush the ability to effectively negotiate trade agreements 
with other nations.
  Currently, the United States only has three preferential trade 
compacts; the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and 
Mexico; a free trade agreement with Israel; and, our trade agreement 
with Jordan. But in recent years our trading partners around the world 
have at last count entered into almost 150 preferential trade compacts.
  These are missed opportunities for us. Other nations are talking and 
negotiating. They are enacting treaties to help their economies and 
their peoples. But, we are being left behind.
  Passing a good, clean TPA bill would give us a chance at getting in 
on the action. It would lead to better paying jobs for our workers, and 
give them the opportunity to prove once again that they are the best 
and most productive in the entire world. Only by passing TPA and 
entering into new and better compacts will we be able to knock down 
discriminatory, unfair trade barriers and to increase the flow of goods 
and services we can sell abroad.
  If we want a seat at the negotiating table. If we want to offer more 
economic opportunity to American workers, we have to pass TPA. If we 
don't, we will literally be missing the boat.
  Until we pass TPA, other nations are going to be very hesitant about 
entering into compacts with us. No other country is going to want to 
negotiate with a President who then has to submit a treaty to a 
Congress which has the power to nitpick every single line of an 
agreement to death. Trade treaties are complex, interwoven agreements. 
Each individual bit is not perfect. But taken together as a whole, they 
typically promote our national interest.
  I am sure that if every Member of Congress has their way, they would 
rewrite line by line provisions in each of the major treaties we have 
passed in recent years. That sort of politicking might play well to 
individual constituencies back home, but it doesn't serve the larger 
economic interest of America.
  To my colleagues who don't like TPA and think that it is an unwise 
delegation of congressional authority, I have to disagree with them. 
Passing this bill still gives every single member of Congress the right 
to support or oppose a treaty they don't like. Under TPA, I have voted 
for treaties I like, and against treaties I don't like. It might not be 
the perfect way to legislate, but it is effective and fair.
  Every President since Gerald Ford has had TPA. I supported TPA--or 
``fast track'' or whatever you want to call it--for President Reagan. I 
supported it for the last President Bush. I supported it for President 
Clinton. And I support if for our current President. I voted for it the 
last time I had the opportunity, in 1998 when it came to the floor and 
lost in the other body.
  And I support TPA now.
  Like I said before, TPA is not perfect, but it's effective. And the 
bill in front of us today is not perfect.
  I have supported amendments to help steel workers and textile workers 
that failed on the floor. I wish they hadn't. In Kentucky, we have a 
good steel industry, and I want to nourish it along. It's been hard hit 
in the last few years by the dumping in the United States of cheap 
foreign steel that has unfairly and illegally cut the legs out from 
under our domestic producers.
  In south-central Kentucky, many of my constituents who used to work 
in the textile mills have been left high and dry when companies moved 
abroad in the wake of NAFTA, by the way an agreement that I opposed 
under the old fast-track rules.
  I would like to do more in this bill for them. Workers in those 
industries need our help. They show that all trade agreements aren't 
perfect.
  We are at least including some meaningful trade adjustment assistance 
in the package to help those who are forced to transition to different 
jobs because of trade. Expanded trade usually leads to better jobs for 
workers. But they often need smart, effective assistance to make the 
change to new occupations. I support trade adjustment assistance to 
help them. The last time Congress considered TAA provisions was in 1998 
when the other body looked at this issue. I was a member then, and I 
voted for $1 billion in trade adjustment assistance for dislocated 
workers. Fortunately, this type of assistance often helps workers move 
more quickly back into the workforce.
  I support the training and education provisions in this legislation. 
They will help. Will they be enough? I don't know.
  As for the rest of the TAA package, I believe there are some problems 
with

[[Page S4803]]

the structuring of the new health and wage benefits that I would like 
to see cleaned up in conference.
  After years of budget surpluses, we are back to looking square in the 
face of a budget deficit in 2002 and beyond. Now the pending 
legislation proposes to add potentially billions in new entitlement 
spending to the deficit each year. A budget crunch is not the time to 
guarantee new entitlements no matter how well intentioned they are.
  By passing this legislation before us now, we would be cutting off 
our nose to spite our face, encouraging free trade and more economic 
activity on the one hand, and growing the federal budget deficit by 
leaps and bounds on the other hand. That doesn't make economic sense, 
and that sort of contradiction would eventually catch up to us and lead 
to even bigger problems.
  Also, if you read the fine print of the health and wage sections, I 
think you will find that it is so complicated that it might not even 
work. I am afraid that it might offer a false promise of assistance to 
workers who need help the most.
  For instance, the wage supplemental provision would require the 
federal government to pay up to $5,000 for up to two years to workers 
over 50 years old if they lose their jobs due to trade activity and 
they take a lower paying job.
  I am afraid that this proposal would actually discourage workers from 
taking similar paying or higher paying jobs. It just doesn't make sense 
to me to encourage people not to work. Instead of this approach, it 
would help more if we ploughed this money back into education and 
retraining.
  Everyone knows the old saying about providing a man a fish so he can 
eat today or teaching him how to fish so he can feed himself forever. I 
think that applies here.
  We also have to ask how well will these new entitlements be managed 
and who will do it. Who's going to be in charge of determining whether 
or not a worker lost their job because of trade? What agency is going 
to manage the nuts and bolts of this potentially gigantic program? How 
will the IRS respond to the administration if another health tax credit 
is being dumped on its plate? There are just too many unanswered 
questions.
  In the end, I am afraid we might not be able to keep many of the 
promises my colleagues want to make under the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance section. For many workers who are struggling now, that would 
be the cruelest thing we could do to them.
  The TAA provisions still pose many unanswered questions, and I hope 
that we will first focus on the areas that have worked before--job 
training and education--before going off into new entitlement programs 
that might not really work and actually serve to undermine the larger 
goals of the overall legislation.
  In conclusion, this isn't a perfect bill. I, like all of my 
colleagues, would write it differently. But is a good effort on an 
important subject that America must address if we are going to secure 
our economic future. As I noted earlier, it's been four years since 
either body voted on TPA, and the failure of the House to pass a bill 
in 1998 has led to years of delay. We cannot let that happen again. We 
have to vote to pass this bill.
  I am not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I 
urge support for the legislation.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dayton-
Craig amendment. This amendment reduces Trade Promotion Authority to 
something that exists in name only. With all due respect to the 
sponsors of this amendment, it is a backdoor attempt to gut this bill 
and still allow people to say they voted for free trade. It would have 
a chilling effect on international trade negotiations.
  Supporters of the Dayton-Craig amendment claim that unless you 
support their amendment then you do not support upholding U.S. trade 
laws. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I stand before you as a strong free trader who is a proponent of 
vigorous enforcement of our country's trade laws. I supported NAFTA and 
GATT as Governor and PNTR for China as a Senator. I've seen Ohio 
benefit from NAFTA with a net increase of approximately 55,000 jobs and 
I've seen it also lose out as a result of our President not having 
Trade Promotion Authority.
  At the same time, no one cares more about making sure our trade laws 
are followed. Ohio has lost tens of thousands of steelworker jobs as a 
result of foreign steel dumping, which led me to urge the President to 
use Section 201 authority to help provide relief to our nation's steel 
industry. He did so and our steel industry now has a breather to 
reconstitute itself and regain its competitive footing.
  I also have been a committed advocate of strengthening enforcement of 
our trade laws by addressing the human capital needs in the Commerce 
Department's international trade divisions. I recently held a hearing 
in which I pushed Undersecretary for International Trade Grant Aldonis 
on the need to address these very concerns.
  In little more than a year in office this Administration has already 
demonstrated its commitment to U.S trade laws. In a letter to Congress 
this week, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Agriculture Secretary Ann 
Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick point out:

       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.

  Our trade laws are part of the overall trade equation that enhances 
American competitiveness by helping to guarantee new access to world 
markets. They require the approval of Congress before any changes are 
made. To buy the argument that opposition to this amendment equates to 
relinquishing control of our trade laws is to believe that Congress is 
simply going to give up its legislative duty to the executive branch. 
That is not going to happen. The argument is simply groundless and 
without merit.
  Additionally, logic dictates that no trade negotiator is going to 
agree to something which will automatically be rejected by Congress. 
The congressional observers guarantee that Congress is aware of what is 
being negotiated as it is happening. Congress has the final say in 
approving trade deals with its final vote and if I am confident of 
anything it is that this body is willing to hold up any and all 
legislation that gives a member even the most minor case of heartburn.
  Trade Promotion Authority does not equate to gutting our trade laws. 
This Administration has already proven itself to be a strong defender 
of our trade laws and, regardless, Congress has the final say over 
legislation, not the executive branch.
  Furthermore, this amendment should be opposed because of the chilling 
effect it will have on the negotiating process. Sufficient safeguards 
already exist in the TPA legislation to guarantee the legitimate and 
constitutional role of Congress as the final guardian of trade law. 
This amendment goes beyond that, however, with limits which would 
essentially allow additional and superfluous votes to hold hostage 
international trade negotiations.
  As a manager, I would never assign a task to someone without also 
empowering them with the tools and authority to get the job done. 
Dayton-Craig takes those tools away. Its effect wouldn't be felt 
somewhere down the road, it would have an impact now, today. The very 
fact that this amendment has been offered has had an impact already on 
our trading partners, I am sure.
  Again, Ambassador Zoellick writes that:

       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 sensitive 
     subjects, unraveling the entire trade negotiation to the 
     detriment of U.S. workers, farmers and consumers.

  Without the ability to engage our trading partners effectively on 
their own trade laws, we cannot hope to see other countries raise their 
laws to U.S. standards. Our country's exports are frequently targeted 
by foreign trade interests for action. Between 1995 and 2000, our 
exports were targeted for action in foreign countries 81 times. Other 
governments do not necessarily

[[Page S4804]]

share our commitment to fair and open procedures, such as those 
conducted by our International Trade Commission.
  To prevent unfair trade actions against our exporters, we must have 
the leverage to engage them constructively. This amendment strips us of 
that ability, which is one reason 79 agricultural groups urge us to 
reject the Dayton-Craig amendment.
  If anyone is opposed to free trade, I urge them to vote their 
conscience. While I disagree with them, I respect their position, but 
don't pretend to be for free trade and then call for an amendment which 
guts the ability of our President to negotiate the agreements that make 
free trade a reality.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, it had been my hope that the Senate would 
vote today on my amendment to the Baucus substitute amendment No. 3401 
to the trade bill, H.R. 3009. Sadly, that will not be the case because 
of procedural roadblocks that foreshadow the kinds of obstacles that 
passage of the underlying bill will raise when we consider future trade 
agreements in the Senate.
  My amendment is about fairness for secondary workers who I believe 
are being treated unfairly. This is why I voted against cloture for the 
underlying substitute, and one of the reasons why I will vote against 
the bill on final passage.
  Nonetheless, I want to take a few moments to point out the plight of 
secondary workers, and urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the 
issue as it continues to develop after we pass this bill later today. 
Several things have been said on the Senate floor about trade 
adjustment assistance, TAA, and secondary workers during the length of 
this discourse on trade, and I think it is important to go back and 
highlight some of them and reiterate what the truth is in this debate.
  Most importantly, I think it is imperative that we realize that 
however many jobs we may create through export-related activities, we 
may lose many more due to the impact of imports. The choice before us 
is, how do we treat those workers adversely impacted by trade 
agreements in the future? Is it not fair to try to change the rules 
governing our trade policy to make a more fair and equitable 
distribution of benefits to those harmed?
  If my colleagues believe that is the case for some workers, as 
demonstrated by the support for TAA in NAFTA and the reauthorization of 
the program in the legislation before us, then it should be the case 
for all workers. It continues that this should mean that TAA is 
available for a particular worker whether they are employed by a 
factory that is directly shut down by trade, or if they work for a 
company that supplied parts to that first factory, only if that 
particular worker has become unemployed due to the effects of trade.
  I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the TAA Program has been a 
successful one since its inception, and I want to reiterate that. In 
fact, since April 1975 through December 2001, almost 3 million workers 
were certified as TAA eligible. However, almost 2.5 million workers 
were also denied certification. This demonstrates the demand for this 
important program, but also reflects the fact that it is a difficult 
process--something that would not be altered should we allow secondary 
workers to be a part of it.
  Another point I would like to reiterate from my earlier remarks is 
the fact that since the ratification of NAFTA, TAA has applied to 
secondary workers that lose their jobs as a result of the NAFTA trade 
agreement. In fact, a total of almost 700,000 workers applied for 
NAFTA-TAA certification from January 1994 through December 2001, and 
over 400,000 were granted certification.
  Although the exact numbers of how many of those beneficiaries were 
secondary workers are unknown, the fact remains that they have the 
right to apply for eligibility. Unfortunately, under the pending bill, 
secondary workers whose jobs have been lost due to a possible trade 
agreement with Chile, or Singapore, or any other country, will not be 
eligible to even apply for certification under TAA.
  Now let me relay some facts about secondary workers and TAA. A GAO 
report from October 2000 estimated that there could be from 34,000 to 
211,000 secondary workers annually who could potentially apply for TAA 
benefits. This reflects the depth and reach of trade's effects on the 
livelihoods of American workers.
  Another GAO report from July 2001 showed that $494 million was 
expended on re-training for about 170,000 workers under TAA. This 
breaks down to less than $3,000 per worker. I think many would agree 
that is a small sum comparatively speaking, particularly when one 
considers the amount of training or schooling an individual can gain 
from that amount of money.
  It is precisely these kinds of workers that so need this type of 
investment in training and schooling. The GAO reports I earlier 
referenced cited the fact that about 80 percent of workers using TAA 
benefits in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 had a high school education or 
less, compared to 42 percent in the labor force as a whole.
  In other words, this is a modest increase in funds for TAA benefits 
that will go a long way toward a worker's developments of new skills, 
and reentry into the workforce to be a productive citizen once again.
  It is not an excuse to claim that the Department of Labor does not 
have adequate resources and staffing to deal with an expansion of the 
TAA Program to secondary workers. First of all, the Department has the 
experience in dealing with this issue, since it already decides on 
certification for secondary workers under NAFTA. Second, I believe we 
have a responsibility to add funding for the Department of Labor in 
order for it to be able to deal with a potentially larger increase in 
its workload.
  This issue is part of our choice here--do we discount these workers 
who have added to the economy, who pay taxes, and who provide for their 
family, just because they do not happen to be directly employed by a 
particular firm that was shut down by trade? Again, this is unfair 
treatment to a segment of our population that deserves our help.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the debate over trade 
promotion authority legislation before the Senate.
  I am in my 10th year as a member of the U.S. Senate and I have 
consistently voted for measures to open new markets to our exporters 
and our workers.
  Today, I will vote for trade promotion authority, or TPA. New export 
opportunities for Washington State will support economic recovery and 
expansion.
  Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the country. 
International trade matters tremendously to each and every region of my 
State and to every sector of our economy. Trade matters to my State in 
good and bad economic times. We are an export State. We have a trade 
surplus. We are also a port State and gateway to Asia and the world.
  My constituents benefit from trade at every point. We grow the 
commodities. We move containers and cargo from ships to rail to 
destinations throughout the country. We manufacture, build, design, 
develop, finance and insure goods and services traded globally each and 
every day. Trade jobs--estimated to be one in three jobs in Washington 
State--are good family wage jobs in my State.
  Importantly, this legislation also significantly expands trade 
adjustment assistance. I have always supported trade adjustment 
assistance. I commend the Finance Committee, the Democratic leader and 
the bipartisan work which led to the expanded TAA package in this 
legislation.
  I was a cosponsor of S. 1209, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
Workers, Farmers, Fisherman, Communities and Firms Act of 2002. The TAA 
language in this legislation is really a product of S. 1209 and the 
bipartisan work of many in the Senate to expand TAA.
  More workers will be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Some 
workers from secondary industries will be covered for the first time 
under the Senate TPA bill.
  The Senate legislation provides community assistance, particularly to 
rural communities, who see significant job loss related to trade. 
Communities will have the opportunity to seek grant assistance to 
implement economic diversification plans.
  Farmers and fishermen will also be eligible for TAA assistance.

[[Page S4805]]

  Importantly, the Senate bill provides new health benefits to 
displaced workers. A new 70 percent up-front, refundable tax credit for 
COBRA coverage will enable many workers and their families to keep 
their health insurance.
  The Senate has considered a number of important amendments and issues 
in this debate over trade promotion authority. I voted for a number of 
important message amendments. I encourage the administration as it 
eventually moves forward with trade talks to give serious consideration 
to the expressed will of the Senate.
  I expect a significant bipartisan vote for trade promotion authority 
today. Then the legislation must go to conference with legislation 
adopted by the House of Representatives. The House TPA bill is very 
different from the Senate bill. Conference committees require 
compromise, and I anticipate changes to the Senate-passed version.
  Regardless of the conference committee outcome, the administration 
should not disregard the Senate TPA debate. The Senate addressed some 
very difficult issues. In future trade talks, the administration will 
be called upon to address issues like those raised on the Senate floor. 
Some in this body will judge trade agreements submitted to the Congress 
on these issues. The administration now knows a great deal about the 
concerns of the Congress. There will be fewer surprises for either the 
Congress or the administration as the future negotiations occur thanks 
in part to the Senate debate.
  I want to be very clear about my expectations for the upcoming TPA 
conference committee. I strongly believe any agreement between the 
House and the Senate must include the Senate trade adjustment 
assistance package.
  It is tremendously important to me that we do all we can to boost 
jobs and create jobs that rely on international trade. Expanded trade 
is a recipe for economic growth in Washington State. That is why I will 
vote for trade promotion authority and advocate for my State's many 
trade interests with the President and this administration.
  At the same time, I know that every worker, every industry, every 
community does not share the benefits of expanded trade equally. Where 
dislocation and hardship occurs, as a result of international trade, 
our government should play an activist role in helping workers and 
communities through these changing and challenging economic times.
  The Congress has an opportunity to do both on this legislation. We 
can move forward to create and protect trade jobs. And we can do the 
right thing in helping workers and communities combat unfair foreign 
trade practices and the changes in the global economy.
  TPA, or fast track, has been granted to every administration since 
President Gerald Ford was in office. Congress has granted this 
authority to Democratic and Republican Presidents. Granting this 
authority which I will support does not obligate any Senator to support 
an agreement. And I will certainly scrutinize any agreement submitted 
to the Congress by the President under TPA.
  My vote for trade promotion authority is a vote to open markets to 
U.S. exporters and their workers. It is a vote for equitable and 
reciprocal access to foreign markets. The U.S. marketplace is the 
world's largest market, and our market is open with few restrictions to 
the world. I want to see the President go abroad on behalf of the 
American people with the goal of opening markets and supporting U.S. 
workers.
  My vote for trade promotion authority is a call on the President and 
the administration to strengthen the international trade system and 
particularly, to strengthen the dispute settlement process for trade 
disputes. The Senate legislation contains important transparency 
guidance to the administration calling for public access to WTO and 
other international trade proceedings.
  My vote for trade promotion authority represents my continued belief 
that environmental protection and worker rights are legitimate trade 
issues. These issues must be included in trade negotiations if the 
Congress is to continue to have bipartisan support for international 
trade initiatives.
  The Senate legislation contains a number of negotiating objectives of 
great importance to Washington. The legislation directs U.S. 
negotiators to seek a revision of WTO rules that disadvantage the U.S. 
in tax cases like foreign sales corporations which benefit U.S. 
exporters. Additionally, the Senate bill provides guidance to the 
administration in a number of important Washington state industries 
like agriculture and high-technology.
  Of great importance to me and to Washington State is the Senate 
language on trade in commercial aircraft. This legislation directs U.S. 
negotiators to address the use of unfair subsidies and non-tariff 
barriers by Airbus. I continue to believe Airbus manipulates the 
commercial aircraft market through subsidies and an assortment of non-
competitive practices. I have met with the U.S. Trade Representative 
regarding Airbus. I fully support the language in this bill to address 
unfair trade practices in commercial aircraft.
  I will vote for passage for this legislation, and I encourage my 
colleagues to send a strong message of support for trade and economic 
expansion.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
concerns about the trade difficulties suffered by our Nation's 
asparagus growers, and to discuss an important amendment I attempted to 
offer to the trade bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was blocked by 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  I know that in many respects global trade holds great promise for 
agriculture by opening new markets and building new demand for the 
bountiful, nutritious food and fiber that is grown in America. But, 
some commodities have been harmed by past trade agreements. That is an 
important fact that should have been acknowledged and addressed during 
the Senate's debate on trade agreements.
  Under preferential treatment provided through the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act (ATPA), Andean countries, like Peru, have been shipping 
duty-free asparagus to the United States since 1992. The asparagus 
market is extremely sensitive to these imports. Many of the growers in 
my state forecast an end to domestic asparagus production if something 
is not done soon to help. Last year alone, growers in Michigan lost 
$2.9 million due to competing duty free asparagus imported from Peru.
  I support the goal of the ATPA B to encourage economic growth in 
Andean nations as an alternative to the production and export of 
illegal, narcotic drugs to the United States B but not at the expense 
of the entire domestic asparagus industry. Since enactment of ATPA, 
shipments of fresh asparagus from one Andean nation, Peru, have 
increased from 14.5 percent of total imports to 41.3 percent. Since 
1992, shipments of frozen asparagus from Peru have increased from 3 
percent of total imports to 71.4 percent.
  I authored an amendment that would have helped to resolve this trade 
situation and that would have provided some relief to domestic 
asparagus growers. My amendment was cosponsored by Senators Levin, 
Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Feinstein.
  The amendment would have allowed preferential treatment of Andean 
asparagus up to a certain point and then established a safeguard for 
domestic growers. In sum, my amendment allowed Andean imports of duty 
free asparagus up to 30 percent of the total imports of asparagus into 
the U.S. per year. Once the 30 percent threshold was met, duty free 
treatment would be suspended for the remainder of the calendar year.
  This was a reasonable solution that would have helped both our 
nation's asparagus growers and would have allowed imported Andean 
asparagus to compete on a level playing field. It is unfortunate that 
this amendment was not included in the trade bill. I intend to continue 
to work on this issue and consider other programs, such as market loss 
payments, that may provide some relief to the asparagus growers in my 
state and across the nation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of final passage of 
this trade legislation. But I do so with the understanding and the hope 
that a number of items in the bill now before us will, in the coming 
weeks, be adequately addressed in conference with the House. I 
therefore voice my support, but not unconditionally.
  The first element of this legislation, which frankly should have been 
passed

[[Page S4806]]

separately earlier this year on the basis of its nearly unanimous 
support, is the extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference 
Act (ATPA).
  The Andean Trade Preference Act was conceived a decade ago as part of 
a mutual effort between the United States and the Andean countries to 
strengthen our economies, which in turn, would help us in the war 
against drugs. In 10 years of existence, ATPA has become an essential 
tool for the commercial interchange between the United States and the 
Andean region. Approximately 140,000 new jobs have been created in the 
Andean region over this time period, and the steady flow of investment 
has helped to double two way trade between the United States and the 
region. Furthermore, great strides have been made in the war against 
drugs; important drug cartels were disbanded, and hundreds of cocaine 
labs were destroyed.
  Today, the Andean region faces a very critical moment. ATPA is 
essential to guarantee sustainability of the achievements we have made 
over the last decade, and to encourage further progress toward the 
shared goal of negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). 
I am very pleased that the Senate will act, albeit late, to extend this 
critical trade act.
  Before I dwell on the concerns I have with trade-promotion authority 
portion of this bill, let me first speak to its strengths. Since trade-
promotion authority lapsed in 1994, America has stood on the sidelines 
while other countries have brokered trade agreements that benefit their 
workers, their businesses, and their economies. Soon after taking 
office, President Bush called on Congress to grant him trade-promotion 
authority to reassert America's leadership in promoting U.S. goods and 
the expertise of our workforce to more markets. The need for expanded 
markets dramatically intensified after our nation's economy underwent a 
decline last March, and the events of September 11th forced so many 
Americans out of their jobs.
  Trade-promotion authority provides the President with the flexibility 
he needs to negotiate strong international trade agreements on behalf 
of U.S. workers and farmers while maintaining Congress' constitutional 
role over U.S. trade policy. It represents a thoughtful approach to 
addressing the complex relationship between international trade, worker 
rights, and the environment without undermining the fundamental purpose 
and proven effectiveness of trade-promotion authority procedures. The 
bill before us will help us to achieve this goal. It not only sends a 
message that we are serious about the principle of open markets, but it 
will be a powerful example, to nations around the world, of what trade-
promotion authority can deliver: economic prosperity on a grand scale.
  Specifically, it gives the administration the authority to negotiate 
and bring back trade agreements to Congress that will reduce trade 
barriers, especially those based on unsound science, relating to the 
manufacturing, services, agriculture, intellectual property, 
investment, and e-commerce industries. It helps to eliminate subsidies 
that decrease market opportunities for U.S. agriculture, and unfairly 
distort markets to the detriment of the United States. It preserves 
U.S. sovereignty while enabling new trade agreements that will create 
solid economic growth, higher-paying jobs for hard-working Americans, 
improved efficiency and innovation, and increased availability of 
attractively priced products in the U.S. market.

  The Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives is similarly directed to 
vigorously enforce U.S. trade-remedy laws and avoid agreements which 
lessen the effectiveness of U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty 
laws. This bill contains negotiating objectives on investment to 
increase transparency for the dispute settlement process, calling for 
standards for expropriation and compensation that are consistent with 
United States legal principles and practice in an effort to eliminate 
frivolous claims. Perhaps most importantly, it expands and improves 
consultations between the administration and Congress, before, during, 
and after trade negotiations and in the development of an implementing 
bill.
  Also included in this legislation is language I authored to suspend 
for a period of five years the 4.9 percent tariff on steam generators 
for nuclear facilities. These generators are not manufactured in the 
United States. Tariffs should never be imposed on products that are not 
domestically manufactured, especially those products that are critical 
for maintaining the U.S. domestic supply of energy.
  This tariff amounts to a ``tax'' of approximately $1.5 million per 
generator on consumers of electricity in those states where utilities 
will have to import from overseas to meet the immediate need to replace 
aging steam generators, which cost would be passed on to ratepayers. In 
the case of the Palo Verde, Arizona plant--the nation's largest nuclear 
power facility in terms of production--the additional cost, due to the 
tariff, is over $8.2 million for the six generators that it will need 
to import.
  Failure to suspend this tariff will unfairly result in higher energy 
prices for consumers, as the utility companies will almost certainly 
pass on this tax to its customers.
  This bill also includes the Kyl Customs Border Security Act 
amendment, added unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in 
December 2001, which will provide significant authority to help 
facilitate legitimate trade, reduce illegal drug and contraband 
trafficking and eliminate threats of terrorism.
  The Kyl amendment authorizes funding to increase the very tools by 
which the Customs Service facilities cross-border trade, and fights 
terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Under the amendments, Customs on 
the Southwest border will receive funding for high-technology 
equipment, including container inspection equipment, automated 
targeting systems and surveillance systems, all of which will help to 
stop terrorism and illegal drug trafficking. The northern border is 
also authorized to receive similar valuable equipment, as are out Gulf 
Coast seaports.
  The Kyl amendment also mandates that cargo and passenger manifests be 
provided in advance to Customs, whether such cargo or passengers enter 
by land, air or sea. I have learned that this provision is Commissioner 
Bonner's number one anti-terrorism legislative priority. Advanced 
electronic manifest data delivered to Customs is absolutely necessary 
for the agency to identify individuals and cargo that should not enter 
the United States. The amendment also authorizes funding for personnel, 
technology and for Customs' new computer system, ACE, Automated 
Commercial Environment, to bring the agency's tracking of business and 
their goods entering the country into the 21st century.
  Under the Kyl amendment, the U.S. Customs Service itself, for the 
first time in over a decade, will also be reauthorized. As our nation's 
oldest law enforcement agency, this is particularly important.
  Finally, the Kyl amendment will close longstanding outbound smuggling 
threats by clarifying that the Customs Service is authorized to search 
outbound international mail. I strongly believe that this section of 
the amendment is integral to our efforts to combat money laundering, 
technology export violations, and terrorist funding crimes.
  Currently, inbound mail, and most everything else leaving the 
country--cargo containers, luggage, boxes, individual persons--and 
stamped mail on a person--is searchable by the Customs Service. The 
Customs Service is only precluded from searching outbound mail. 
Smugglers may send drugs, finance terrorism, or send explosives on 
aircraft by simply mailing their contraband or money out of the 
country. My amendment, added to the trade adjustment assistance bill 
during that bill's consideration in the Finance Committee, would 
authorize the search of all first class mail by Customs, as long as the 
Customs Service has reasonable suspicion about such mail. The amendment 
also clarifies, through codification, that all mail besides that 
considered first-class--referred to as ``mail not sealed against 
inspection--can be searched without reasonable suspicion. Under this 
provision, none of the mail that is allowed to be searched is allowed 
to be read without a warrant.
  During floor consideration of this trade package, Senator Jon Corzine

[[Page S4807]]

raised objections to the outbound mail provision. Although I fully 
support the original outbound mail provision, and will support such 
provision in conference, I appreciate the efforts of Senator Corzine 
and his staff to work with me and my staff toward resolution in this 
particular debate. Substitute language has been accepted by the Senate, 
to replace my original language, that would exempt first-class mail 
with a weight of under 16 ounces from the reasonable search authority 
that we are attempting to authorize for the Customs Service. In 
addition, under this new language, a requirement has been placed 
requiring the State Department to issue a report about whether or not 
the ``in-transit'' mail authority provision, which will allow 
appropriate searches of international mail destined for a third country 
but which travels through the United States on its way, is consistent 
with international law.
  Less than three weeks ago the Congress passed, and the President 
signed into law, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
Act, which will provide all areas of the Justice Department and the 
State Department with personnel and resources to fight the war on 
terrorism. In that bill, an interoperable data sharing system will aid 
all federal law enforcement to better track and identify would-be 
terrorists. Because of jurisdictional concerns about customs, that 
vitally important bill does not include resources for the Customs 
Service. That is why it is so important that this bill include such 
funding. The Kyl Customs Border Security Act does so and is an integral 
part of my decision to support the overall package.

  Many have spoken about how trade-promotion authority will help the 
United States. I want to speak for a moment about how trade-promotion 
authority will help my home state of Arizona specifically. This bill 
will open new markets worldwide to Arizona goods and services. That, in 
turn, will boost local communities' economies, provide job security for 
the hundreds of thousands of Arizonans whose work depends on exports--
the backbone of the Arizona economy.
  One out of every five manufacturing job in Arizona is tied to 
exports. An estimated 70,400 Arizona jobs support the manufactured-
goods-for-export industry directly. Wages of workers in jobs supported 
by exports are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average. 
Roughly 5,060 Arizona citizens hold jobs related to agriculture 
exports. Arizona exported $333 million in agriculture in 1999. And last 
year, Arizona sold more than $10 billion worth of exports to nearly 200 
foreign markets, and produced and exported more than $9.4 billion worth 
of manufactured items such as computers, electronics, machinery, 
transportation equipment, fabricated metal products and appliances. 
Arizona relies on its exports with export sales of nearly $2,000 for 
every state resident. Clearly, trade-promotion authority only brings 
more good news to Arizona's entrepreneurs and small businesses.
  But as I mentioned above, there is much that needs to be done before 
we can deliver this good news. Let me briefly elaborate on my specific 
concerns that will need to be addressed in conference. First, it is 
imperative that we remove the so-called ``Dayton-Craig'' language that 
would permit the raising of a point of order if the implementing 
legislation negotiated under trade-promotion authority amends U.S. 
trade remedies law, however technical or even beneficial the change. 
This language, if kept in the final legislation, will unravel 
successful trade negotiations, and it is wholly unnecessary to add it 
on top of language already included and explicitly states in the bill, 
i.e., the directive to ``preserve the ability of the United States to 
enforce rigorously its trade laws'' and ``avoid agreements that lessen 
the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair 
trade.''
  I am also disappointed by the multitude and details of the trade 
adjustment assistance (TAA) provisions in this legislation. I firmly 
believe that, rather than enacting a whole host of new entitlements, 
the best assistance we can provide to unemployed (or displaced) workers 
is enhanced free trade, which will in turn provide greater job 
opportunities. However, this legislation has become burdened with a 
variety of new and expended entitlements that, while well-intentioned, 
will only serve to distort the free-market and delay the inevitable 
benefits of freer trade for our citizens.
  One of thee provisions is a ``wage insurance'' entitlement, which 
would provide up to a $5,000 subsidy for older TAA-certified workers 
who are subsequently employed at lower-paying jobs. Aside from a 
complete lack of data supporting the efficacy of such a proposal, this 
provision would create significant disincentives for workers to forgo 
needed training and/or a more intensive job search. Instead, it will 
likely result in workers choosing lower paying and perhaps lower-
skilled jobs with the taxpayers liable for the difference.

  Another provision in this legislation provides an advanceable, 
refundable health insurance tax credit to TAA-certified workers. The 
credit is set at an arbitrarily high percentage of the premiums' cost--
70 percent--and can only be used to subsidize the cost of company-based 
COBRA or pooled health insurance policies. Additionally, it can not be 
used for the purchase of individual market policies, which might better 
suit the workers' health needs at a reduced cost. I believe that it is 
unfair for American taxpayers, many of whom may not have health 
insurance themselves, to provide such a generous health insurance 
subsidy.
  Despite the serious concerns I have expressed about these provisions, 
I intend to vote in favor of this overall legislation at this time. 
But, as I mentioned earlier, this is a qualified vote. Unless 
substantial improvement is made to this legislation during conference, 
I will not vote for the bill when it returns.
  With few exceptions, I believe that the House-passed language on TPA, 
TAA and ATPA is far superior to the Senate-passed language. And there 
are some specific items that must be addressed in a House-Senate 
conference before I can vote in favor of a final bill.
  First, the conference report must maintain the 2002-2006 suspension 
of 4.9 percent tariff on steam generators for nuclear power facilities.
  Second, the conference report must remove the so-called ``Dayton-
Craig'' language.
  Third, it must either eliminate or substantially improve the language 
creating a ``wage insurance'' program for TAA-certified workers age 50 
and older.
  Fourth, the conference report must also make significant improvements 
to the health insurance tax credit for TAA-certified workers.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these 
concerns, and I hope to be able to vote for final passage of this 
important legislation.
  As a matter of principle on the one hand, and of sound economic 
policy on the other, I believe that we must grant the President trade-
promotion authority. And, as has been stated by many of my colleagues, 
we must be careful to ensure that the final language of the bill 
preserves this authority. So while I believe that this bipartisan 
effort represents a strong vote in favor of trade-promotion authority, 
I caution that there is still work to be done before it can be sent to 
the White House.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when fighting for American working men and 
women, most members of Congress want to go into the ring with both arms 
swinging. That is why I am at a loss to understand why some members of 
Congress are willing to tie one hand behind their back when it comes to 
trade. The way I see it, fast track ties one hand behind our collective 
back when trade agreements come before the Congress.
  I have some serious concerns with the Baucus-Grassley fast track 
legislation being considered by the Senate. Granting the President 
broad fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements means Congress 
must adopt a law to implement any trade agreement on a straight up of 
down vote, without the ability to offer amendments. I believe in free 
trade. I support the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the Vietnam Free 
Trade Agreement and granting China PNTR. But I am reluctant to give up 
the Congressional right to amend trade legislation, sight unseen. When 
we do that, we are throwing away on of the most effective tools in 
forcing fairer trade practices.
  We should negotiate trade agreements to protect human rights as well

[[Page S4808]]

as labor and environmental standards. The Senate should have acted to 
ensure that these and other provisions addressing fairness in trade 
practices are included in future trade agreements. The Baucus-Grassley 
approach doesn't provide us with the means to do that and in fact fall 
far short of achieving these goals.
  America's trade policy over the past 30 years has helped create a 
one-way street. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world, 
yet we have failed to achieve foreign markets being equally open to 
American products. Some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered 
into have fallen far short of opening foreign markets. To ensure free 
and fair trade will be achieved in any future trade agreement, Congress 
must not give up its ability to amend the legislation implementing the 
agreement.
  I have fought hard to strengthen U.S. trade laws to help open foreign 
markets to American and Michigan products such as automobiles, auto 
parts, communications equipment, cherries, apples, and wood products.
  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted January 1, 
1994, is a good example of a trade agreement negotiated under ``fast 
track'' authority. It contained provisions allowing Mexico to protect 
its auto industry and discriminate against U.S. manufactured 
automobiles used cars and auto parts for up to 25 years. It allowed 
Mexico to require auto manufacturers assembling vehicles in Mexico to 
purchase 36 percent of their parts from Mexican parts manufacturers. It 
also allowed for 25 more years the Mexican law against selling American 
used cars in Mexico, a highly discriminatory provision against U.S. 
autos.
  When NAFTA was presented to Congress, it was an agreement which 
discriminated against some of the principle products that are made in 
Michigan. I surely could not vote for the bill the way it was written, 
nor could I try to amend the bill because the fast-track authority the 
President had at that time prohibited implementing legislation from 
being amended. Consequently, after NAFTA was enacted, the U.S. went 
from a trade surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 to a trade deficit of $25 
billion with Mexico in 2000. Over the same period, our trade deficit 
increased from $11 billion to $44.9 billion with Canada. Since NAFTA 
was enacted, the automotive trade deficit with Mexico has reached $23 
billion.
  Moroever, between January, 1994 and early May 2002, the Department of 
Labor certified over 400,000 workers as having suffered job losses as a 
result of increased imports from or plant relocations to Mexico or 
Canada. These job losses occurred all over the country as well as from 
around the State of Michigan. For example, 27 employees from the Blue 
Water Fiber company in Port Huron who produced pulp for paper lost 
their jobs as a result of NAFTA imports. 129 employees of Alcoe 
Fujikura Limited in Owosso who made electronic radio equipment lost 
their jobs to Mexico. 1,133 employees of the Copper Range Mine in the 
UP lost their jobs when operations were moved to Canada. 300 employees 
of Eagle Ottawa Leather in Grand Haven who made leather for automobile 
interiors lost their jobs when their jobs moved to Mexico. The list of 
NAFTA-TAA certified jobs losses goes on and on. These are not job 
losses from a level playing field. These are losses from a sloping 
field tilted against us.
  We have lost too many manufacturing jobs because our trade policies 
have been so weak over the decades. I've always believed that when 
countries raise barriers to our products that we ought to treat them no 
better than they treat us. Fast track authority makes it more difficult 
for Congress to insist on fair treatment for American products and 
equal access to foreign markets.
  Calling NAFTA a free trade agreement was disingenuous. NAFTA 
protected Mexican industries and it also gave special treatment to 
certain industries. For example, leather products and footwear got the 
longest U.S. tariff phase out--15 years--and it include safeguard 
provisions against import surges in these sectors. Agricultural 
Commodities/Fruits and Vegetables including sugar, cotton, dairy, 
peanuts, oranges, also got a 15-year U.S. tariff phase out, a quota 
system, and the reimposition of a higher duty if imports exceed agreed-
upon quota levels. It is clear that those who are represented at the 
negotiating table are able to strike favorable deals to protect certain 
industries and products. That is not free trade.
  NAFTA was not the only trade agreement that included specially 
tailored provisions for certain products. The trade bill we are being 
asked to vote on contains special provisions to protect textiles, 
citrus and some other speciality agriculture commodities.
  The Andean Trade Preferences Act also protects certain industries. 
ATPA expands duty free access to Andean nations for some previously 
excluded categories of products but there are significant exclusions or 
special rules that continue to protect them. The exclusions in the 
Senate ATPA bill include: most footwear; textiles and apparel are 
included but are subject to a number of special rules and limitations 
such as requiring that certain apparel products be sewn with U.S. 
thread in order to receive duty-free access, requiring the use of a 
certain spandex product made exclusively by the DuPont company, 
requiring the use of U.S. yarn throughout in order to qualify for duty-
free access; and canned tuna is included but the Senate bill allows 
duty free treatment for very limited quantities of cannot tuna to be 
imported and subject to a very restricted rule of origin.
  These are special protections being granted to specific industry 
sectors. Why are these products be treated in a privileged manner over 
other important U.S.-made or grown products? This is not free trade.
  I believe that writing labor and environmental standards into trade 
agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. 
Regrettably, this legislation does not go far enough to assure 
international labor and environmental standards will be present in 
trade agreements. We need trade agreements with enforceable labor and 
environmental provisions but this bill does not provide it.
  This is unfortunate given the U.S. Senate is already on record 
supporting strong labor and environmental standards in trade 
agreements. The Senate passed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement on 
September 21, 2001. The Jordan agreement broke new ground in its 
treatment of labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. For 
the first time, it required that the parties to the agreement reflect 
the core internationally recognized labor rights in their own domestic 
labor laws.
  The bill the Senate is considering today does not require countries 
to implement the core ILO labor standards. It only requires them to 
enforce their existing labor laws, however weak they may be. It also 
specifically states that the U.S. may not retaliate against a trading 
partner that lowers or weakens its labor or environmental laws.
  This language undercuts our ability to negotiate strong labor and 
environmental standards in future trade agreements because our trading 
partners know we can not enforce what we negotiate through the use of 
sanctions and the dispute settlement process.
  American workers already compete against workers from countries where 
wages are significantly lower than in the United States. They should 
not have to compete against countries that gain an unfair comparative 
advantage because they pollute their air and water and fail to allow 
their workers to exercise rights that are fundamental. The United 
States enacted environmental standards that protect our air and water. 
We have enacted labor standards that allow for collective bargaining 
and the right to organize, that prohibit the use of child labor and 
provide protections for workers in the work place. These are desirable 
standards that we worked hard to get. Why should we force American 
workers to compete against countries with no such standards or 
protection for its workers?
  There are many ways to improve this fast track legislation to address 
some of the concerns I've outlined. I supported many of these efforts. 
For Congress to give up its role under the Constitution without those 
protections is to fail to learn from our past mistakes. To do so means 
we have willingly tied one hand behind our back in the fight for free 
and fair trade. That is something I am simply unwilling to do.

[[Page S4809]]

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to detail some of the 
benefits of trade promotion authority to American agriculture.
  Our President, regardless of party, has not had trade negotiating 
authority since 1994. While other countries have been busy negotiating 
trade agreements, the world's superpower has been sitting on the 
sidelines. Today, over 150 trade agreements exist worldwide; the United 
States is party to only three. This disparity must be remedied, but 
without trade promotion authority, U.S. exporters and our nation's 
farmers may be left stuck in the mud. The question is not whether the 
U.S. should have free trade or no free trade. The question is, will the 
U.S. participate in the world economy or will we be left behind?
  TPA is critical to the administration's credibility at the 
negotiating table. Without TPA, our negotiators may not even get a seat 
at the table, much less have the opportunity to negotiate vigorously 
for our national interest. With 96 percent of consumers living outside 
the United States, the absence of negotiating authority is a price we 
cannot afford to pay.
  One third of U.S. farm acres is planted for export, 25 percent of 
gross farm income is export dependent, and over 12 million U.S. jobs 
depend on exports. Nearly 100 commodity and agricultural groups and a 
bipartisan group of ten former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture support 
Trade Promotion Authority.
  Where would American agriculture be without international trade? Last 
year, U.S. agricultural exports totaled $51 billion. This year, federal 
officials expect this number to grow to $53.5 billion, an agricultural 
trade surplus of $14.5 billion. Can we find an additional $14.5 billion 
a year in the federal budget to offset these losses?
  According to the USDA, U.S. agriculture is 2\1/2\ times more trade 
dependent than the general economy. American agriculture needs trade 
promotion authority to reduce worldwide tariffs. While the average 
tariff assessed by the United States on agricultural products is less 
than 5 percent, the average agricultural tariff assessed by other 
countries exceeds 60 percent.
  As a Senator from Illinois, I represent a big agricultural state with 
total cash farm receipts totaling $7 billion in the year 2000. With a 
42 percent reliance on agricultural exports, Illinois ranks sixth with 
agricultural exports of $3 billion. My State's top agricultural exports 
include--soybeans and soybean products at $1.1 billion, feed grains and 
feed grain products at $946 million, live animals and red meats at $277 
million, and wheat and wheat products at $124 million. When it comes to 
Illinois agriculture, open markets and trade promotion authority are of 
tantamount importance.
  Illinois is the largest soybean producing state in the nation. Under 
the Uruguay Round, South Korea is required to reduce its tariffs on 
soybean oil by 14.5 percent from 1995 to 2004. USDA has reported that 
this ``tariff reduction has supported a threefold increase in export 
volume.''
  Illinois is also the fourth largest pork producing State in the 
Nation. Since the Uruguay Round agreement went into effect, U.S. pork 
exports have increased by almost 90 percent in volume and approximately 
80 percent in value from 1994 levels.
  Additionally, Illinois ranks second in corn production. While Brazil, 
Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay can trade corn with Argentina duty free, 
U.S. corn is assessed an eleven percent import tax.
  Voting against fast-track authority means you endorse the status quo 
of high tariffs and limited access for U.S. goods, while voting for 
fast-track gives the administration the tools needed to remedy some of 
these egregious inequities.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the legislation that we are about to pass 
is the most difficult bill that the Senate has considered this year. 
Like nothing else that we have seen this year, trade promotion 
authority has put some of my most deeply-held beliefs in conflict with 
each other.
  TPA does two things. First, it makes a broad statement about the 
importance of international trade. Accurate or not, there is a belief 
in this city that you must support TPA to demonstrate your unflinching 
support for greater opportunity for U.S. businesses abroad. The 
Washington view is that you must support TPA if you believe that 
political liberalization comes from economic liberalization.
  The facts suggest that, certainly, lowering barriers to trade in the 
world is good for U.S. businesses and good for the U.S. economy. 
Businesses in Massachusetts sold more than $19.7 billion worth of goods 
to more than 200 foreign markets last year. That is more than $3,000 
worth of goods sold abroad for every resident. And, while we tend to 
think of international trade as being the playground of big business, 
almost 75 percent of my State's exporting businesses are small 
businesses. Of larger businesses which have overseas subsidiaries, 
almost three-fourths of profits earned abroad are returned to parent 
companies in the United States. That means more jobs and higher wages 
at home. Today, one-tenth of all jobs in this country are directly 
related to our ability to export goods and services. When you consider 
multiplying effects, that number rises to nearly one-third. So there 
are clear benefits at home to increasing America's access to markets 
abroad.
  I also believe that trade and trade agreements have a role to play in 
helping us achieve our foreign policy goals. The direct American 
investment that comes to foreign countries as a result of free trade 
agreements can reduce corruption and promote strong democratic 
institutions, like an independent judiciary and vibrant non-
governmental organizations. And by making other countries stakeholders 
in a rules-based system of trade, we can diminish the possibility of 
trade disputes escalating into open conflict.
  I do support improving Americans' access to foreign markets, and I 
firmly believe in the power of open markets to create open societies. 
And so, reluctantly, I will support this bill.
  I say ``reluctantly'' because I do not believe that the TPA equation 
is balanced. Granting TPA to any President requires a significant 
amount of trust. Granting TPA means that you trust the President to 
negotiate trade deals that are consistent with our American values.
  The statistics I just recited show that trade is good for the 
economy. And, certainly, economic development is one important element 
of those values. But I am afraid that, in recent years, some of our 
other core beliefs have not been a part of the national debate over 
trade.
  When the President negotiate agreements that will lower tariffs and 
other barriers to trade, it is, in my judgment, equally important that 
he make sure that our Nation's strong environmental and labor laws are 
upheld. It is equally important too that he ensure that we have a forum 
to export our views on these issues to the nations with whom we engage 
in expanded commerce.
  I do not mean to suggest that we can simply direct other countries to 
develop environmental laws or labor laws that equal our own. True 
reform in developing nations, be it the development of democratic 
infrastructure, or the growth of a vibrant labor movement, cannot 
simply be exported from the United States. These concepts must come to 
fruition through the will of the people.
  However, no one disputes that the United States has a significant 
role to play in helping other countries breathe the air of political 
freedom. So, too, should the United States play a leading role in 
helping developing countries breathe clean air and help create programs 
that provide workers with a safe workplace and the chance to earn a 
decent wage.
  Unfortunately, it is clear that, despite the best intentions of NAFTA 
and in developing the World Trade Organization, labor and environmental 
issues have not been treated at the same level in our trade policy as 
investment rights or intellectual property rights. That is 
disappointing.
  I regret that this President's track record on domestic labor issues 
and domestic environmental issues does not fill me with confidence that 
our Nation's trade policy will be a tool used to help other nations 
improve their political, environmental and social climates. At every 
turn, he has sought to diminish the gains of the labor movement and 
roll-back environmental regulations in his own country. I surely hope 
that this is not the message that

[[Page S4810]]

he intends to carry with him as he negotiates free trade agreements 
with Chile, Singapore and others.
  Some of us in this body have put forth amendments which we believe 
could have helped us to trust the President more. These amendments 
would have elevated labor and environmental protections to the same 
level of intellectual property protections, or, as my amendment would 
have, guaranteed that future trade agreements would not corrode 
American legal principles and Constitutional rights. All but one of 
these were unsuccessful.
  The defeat of these amendments leave us with no safeguards for 
legitimate public health and safety laws. We have no assurances that 
other nations with whom we forge agreements under this bill will honor 
their existing labor or environmental laws. We have no reason to 
suspect that the President will be a forceful advocate for some of our 
country's most cherished beliefs: that clean air, clean water and 
preservation of the outdoors are worth fighting for; that workers 
should have the right to organize; and that U.S. sovereignty must be 
protected.
  In spite of these glaring weaknesses, I intend to support this bill. 
That is how strongly I believe in the principle of free trade, and the 
belief that we can help other countries improve their political 
environment by embracing them, not isolating them. But I would caution 
this President and others that we need to pay much more attention to 
some of these other trade issues, issues that have been on the margins 
of trade policy for too long. If we do not heed these warnings, then 
that fragile coalition that holds supporters of free and fair trade 
together will crumble, as it nearly did in the House and nearly did 
here in the Senate.
  I would like to make one final point about this legislation. The bill 
that we will pass shortly contains an enormous improvement in the trade 
adjustment assistance program. This is much-needed. In the long-run, 
more international trade means more opportunity and jobs for Americans. 
In the short-term, however, it creates changes in communities. Some 
people lose jobs. Factories, the lifeblood of some towns and cities, 
close. Eventually, new employment opportunities are created. But it is 
imperative that we have a way to ease that transition. This TAA package 
does just that. For the first time, we are subsidizing health care for 
laid-off workers. That is a remarkable step forward. We are attempting 
something new by creating a wage insurance program to make sure that 
older workers do not suffer sudden and destabilizing pay reductions. 
These are critical expansions of TAA, and they could not be more timely 
for some of my constituents.
  In Northampton, MA, the Techalloy plant that processes wire rod steel 
will close on July 1. They've been hurt by the President's decision to 
impose 15 percent duties on raw wire rod steel from abroad. Now, I know 
that the 42 workers currently at the Techalloy plant would much rather 
have a job than TAA benefits. They want to work. It's not the same as 
maintaining their job, but this new package will help these folks stay 
on their feet while they seek new employment.
  The TAA package that we will approve is welcome, and I am proud to 
support this provision. I particularly want to thank Chairman Baucus, 
Senator Grassley, and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work in 
helping shape this reauthorization of the TAA program.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the trade bill. 
I oppose this trade bill because it seeks trade that is more free than 
fair. It sends a very mixed message to America's working men and women 
and their families.
  The good news is that the bill includes a real expansion of trade 
adjustment assistance benefits for Americans who lose their jobs as a 
result of trade agreements. The House trade bill doesn't provide these 
trade adjustment assistance benefits. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
the TAA bill and I commend Senators Bingaman and Daschle for their 
leadership to help workers harmed by trade.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities, 
and Firms Act strengthens the existing TAA program. It broadens 
eligibility to cover workers who lose their jobs due to increased 
imports, even if they don't directly work for a company that closes 
down due to trade. It extends benefits to laid-off workers from 52 
weeks to 78 weeks and increases job training funds. This bill also 
helps communities adjust, because when a factory shuts down, it isn't 
just the workers at the plant who are affected.
  Healthcare is a critical addition to the TAA program. People who lose 
their jobs can't afford healthcare on their own. This bill will help 
laid-off workers buy healthcare coverage by covering 70 percent of the 
cost. I would have been happier with the 75 percent level in the 
Committee-passed bill, but this is a very important step.
  Wage insurance for older workers is another key addition to the TAA 
program. Experienced workers, even with training in new skills, often 
cannot get another job that pays them anything close to what they were 
earning. This bill will supplement wages to help these workers get a 
new start in a new job. That is the good news.
  The bad news is that the bill includes a renewal of Fast Track 
negotiating authority. That means more Americans will lose their jobs 
in the name of free trade. More people will get TAA benefits, but more 
people will need them.
  Let me be very clear on one point. I support trade. I encourage 
trade. Trade is very important to my state. Maryland workers can 
compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level 
playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade.
  I oppose fast-track trade promotion authority now for the same 
reasons I opposed fast track when a Democrat was in the White House.
  I don't believe Congress should give away our right and 
responsibility to fully consider trade agreements.
  The Bush administration has the authority to negotiate trade 
agreements. U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick doesn't need fast 
track. He went to Doha to start another round of multilateral trade 
talks without fast track. He can negotiate a free trade agreement of 
the Americas without fast track. Hundreds of trade agreements have been 
reached and implemented without fast track.
  What the Bush administration wants is to cut trade deals and limit 
the power of Congress to review those deals. That is what fast track 
really means.
  Why is the role of Congress so important? To make sure the American 
people get a good deal. I am ready to support trade agreements that are 
good for America, agreements that are good for workers and good for the 
environment. Congress should consider trade legislation--and 
amendments--to it using the same procedures we use to consider other 
international agreements and implementing legislation.
  Proponents of trade agreements say it is inevitable that there will 
be winnners and losers.
  The problem is America's workers and their families always seem to be 
the losers. They lose their jobs. They lose their healthcare. If they 
keep their jobs or find new jobs, they lose the wage rates they have 
earned.
  American workers aren't the only losers.
  American consumers also lose.
  I am particularly concerned that we don't regulate and inspect the 
safety of imported food the way USDA regulates and inspects domestic 
food products. Our trading partners set their own meat inspection 
standards. Shouldn't we use our trade policy as leverage to make our 
food safer?
  Workers and children around the world also lose.
  We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to ensure fair 
competition. That means workers in other countries should have the 
right to organize into unions. Without the strength of collective 
bargaining, their wages will always be below ours. They should also 
have worker safety protection and retirement and healthcare benefits.
  Children should be in school, learning the skills to be good citizens 
and participants in the global economy. Instead, children as young as 
six years old put in full days of work. More than 350 million children 
under the age of 18 work, according to the International Labor 
Organization. More alarming is the fact that over 111 million of them 
are children between the ages of 5 and

[[Page S4811]]

14 engaged in ``hazardous work.'' And 5.7 million children are in 
forced and bonded labor.
  How can we enter into trade agreements with countries that do nothing 
to protect their children? Is it fair for a 45-year-old on Maryland's 
Eastern Shore to compete with a 12-year-old in Southern China?
  Protecting against child labor and forced labor should be the core of 
any trade agreement.
  I am proud to have cosponsored and supported amendments on labor 
rights, child labor, environmental protection, and other issues which I 
firmly believe must be addressed in agreements to strengthen fair 
trade.
  I am particularly proud to have joined with colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle in an effort to provide a safety net for steel retirees 
who lose their healthcare coverage due to unfair trade. A clear 
majority in the Senate supported that amendment. We were blocked 
procedurally by Senators who support trade and are unwilling to address 
its human consequences.
  I have said before that I don't want to put American jobs on a Fast 
Track to Mexico or a slow boat to China but that is exactly what is 
happening as a result of NAFTA and China's admission to the World Trade 
Organization. Black and Decker closed down a manufacturing plant on 
Maryland's Eastern Shore because they could get cheaper labor abroad. 
They literally moved those jobs to Mexico and China. I am glad the 
expanded trade adjustment assistance will help these workers but they 
shouldn't have lost their jobs in the first place.
  I intend to stand up for American workers and consumers. I intend to 
stand up for the right and responsibility of Congress to fully consider 
trade agreements. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the trade 
bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this historic 
trade package, our country is precariously positioned in the 
international trade arena. Many of our friends and allies no longer see 
the United States as a nation that champions global free trade, but 
rather as a nation that increasingly fears foreign competition and 
seeks to erect barriers to trade in order to protect domestic 
industries and advance narrow political agendas. A series of short-
sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized our 
relationships with our most important trading partners.
  Given our recent double standards on trade, it is not surprising that 
the United States is quickly losing its credibility and leadership in 
championing free trade principles around the world. Our staunchest 
allies and most important trading partners are now doubting our 
dedication to the free trade principles we have long championed.
  Many of the nations that engage in the free exchange of commerce are 
also our staunchest allies in the war on terrorism. Over the past eight 
months, those countries have joined in our worthy cause, some making 
substantial sacrifices to advance our shared values. During that time, 
even as our allies have deployed their forces to stand alongside our 
own in Central Asia, we have pursued protectionist policies on steel 
and lumber, and passed into law a regressive, trade-distorting farm 
bill. We are already fighting one war on a global scale. We cannot 
simultaneously fight a trade war.
  The United States simply cannot afford to follow the dangerous path 
of protectionism. I hope that the passage of trade promotion authority, 
TPA, and the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, both of which are 
included in this package, will represent a turning point. Now is our 
chance to put a stop to our short-sighted protectionism and recognize 
that such behavior has consequences.
  As the rest of the world negotiates free trade agreements without our 
participation, the citizens of this country are losing out. Free trade 
stimulates economic growth, creates higher paying jobs, reduces the 
cost of goods and services, and promotes stability in regions of 
strategic interest to the United States. Somehow, we seem to have lost 
sight of these overarching goals.
  The Doha round of World Trade Organization, WTO, negotiations provide 
an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate to the countries of 
the world our dedication to reducing barriers to trade on a global 
scale. Passage of this bill will enable the Administration to negotiate 
the best possible agreements for America. Beyond the WTO, I look 
forward to the completion of bilateral trade agreements with Singapore 
and Chile, the opening of formal negotiations on new trade agreements 
with nations like Australia, regional accords with the nations of 
Central America, and ultimately, a Free Trade Agreement of the 
Americas--a goal articulated by President George H.W. Bush fully a 
decade ago, and one which we must recommit ourselves and our Latin 
friends to achieving.
  One of the most critical and time-sensitive components of this trade 
package is the extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference 
Act, ATPA. In 1991, ATPA was created to expand the economies of the 
drug-plagued nations of the Andean region. By granting duty-free and 
reduced-rate treatment to various products from Bolivia, Colombia, 
Ecuador, and Peru, we hoped to strengthen the fragile economies of the 
region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and 
workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. The 
Andean Trade Preference Act has worked. It has created new industries 
in the Andean region, and with them hundreds of thousands of jobs 
outside the drug trade. As the region's leaders will attest, it is a 
success story.
  Regrettably, ATPA expired on December 4, inflicting immediate harm on 
the region, because Congress had not taken timely action on legislation 
to prevent its expiration. The House of Representatives passed an 
extension and expansion of ATPA over six months ago. On February 15 the 
President, citing national security concerns, took the unprecedented 
step of extending a 90-day duty deferral of products under ATPA, giving 
Congress time to pass an extension. That 90-day deferral expired last 
week while the trade bill remained mired in partisan debate before the 
Senate.
  Our delay in extending and expanding ATPA impacts our national 
security, stability in the hemisphere, and economic growth in Bolivia, 
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. These nations are on the front lines of the 
war on drugs, their democracies threatened by criminals and terrorists, 
their people suffering from economic deprivation. It is time we 
realized the impact our actions and inactions have, not just on the 
United States, but on the rest of the world as well. Our delayed action 
has sent the very dangerous message that the United States is no longer 
engaged in the region.
  Our hemisphere is in serous trouble. Democracy and free markets are 
tested by social instability, lack of economic opportunity, and the 
violence wrought by drug traffickers and terrorist groups. From the 
FARC and the ELN in Colombia to Hezbollah in Ecuador and elsewhere in 
our hemisphere, terrorists take advantage of state failure and economic 
underdevelopment to operate freely, and at grave risk to American 
interests and those of our allies.
  The Andean trade act is part of our active engagement in the region, 
a gateway to economic opportunity and a symbol of America's commitment 
to the democratic stability and security of our Andean partners. The 
elected leaders of Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru know that 
delivering economic opportunity to their people is the best means of 
protecting democratic institutions and defeating terrorism and the drug 
trade. They ask not for substantial American assistance, but for access 
to the American market through free and open trade. This serves not 
only their interests but our own.
  Unlike other efforts which provide direct grants, loans, or military 
assistance, ATPA costs the U.S. nothing. In fact, American workers and 
consumers benefit from it through reduced prices on goods and services. 
The U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, has estimated that U.S. 
consumers annually save over $20 million due to the benefits of ATPA. 
In addition to cost savings, the Act also enhances American security. 
By creating legitimate jobs outside the drug trade, bolstering state 
institutions, and expanding national economies, terrorists and drug 
traffickers will no longer find such easy refuge in the Andean region.

[[Page S4812]]

  I regret that we had to consider three very important, and very 
different, pieces of trade legislation in one package; I believe the 
end product suffered as a result. Passing these bills in this manner 
prevented us from adequately debating complicated and questionable 
provisions. Indeed, this bill is far from perfect. I know that I am not 
alone in expressing my concern over some of the provisions now 
contained within this trade package, particularly those which are 
clearly antithetical to the spirit of free trade.
  The conferees certainly have their work cut out for them. Although 
recent actions indicate that we may be taking steps backwards in 
certain areas, it is incumbent upon the conferees to reaffirm the 
principles of free trade, and to receive the strongest support from the 
Administration for their efforts. We must all ensure that we do not 
sacrifice free trade principles for a bill that is called ``free 
trade,'' but does something else entirely. Even before Senate passage, 
efforts in the other body are underway to weaken provisions contained 
within this package. I hope that these efforts do not succeed.
  That said, I believe this bill represents an opportunity to end 
America's dispiriting slide backwards into protectionism. Passage of 
this imperfect but important trade bill is a good start. It is time for 
America to again lead the world on trade.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Baucus and Grassley for 
working with me on my amendments to this legislation. They and their 
staffs were very helpful.
  There was one amendment that I filed to this bill that I had intended 
to offer dealing with tax incentives to help communities affected by 
trade. I did not offer it because I know that the leaders of the bill 
as well as the leadership of the Senate all agreed that there would be 
no tax amendments to this bill. However, I would like to speak about 
the amendment very briefly, because I intend to look for future 
opportunities to see it passed.
  The amendment is designed to help communities devastated by foreign 
trade get back on their feet by providing incentives for businesses to 
locate in these areas.
  Already, the Federal Government has policies to help communities in 
trouble attract new business through tax incentives. The programs are 
called Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities.
  Here is the problem: These designations do not help struggling rural 
communities that have been hit with dramatic job losses only recently. 
A decade ago, these communities were home to busy textile plants. 
Today, they are being devastated as their major employers shut down and 
thousands of jobs disappear. Many of the people in these communities 
have lived in these towns for generations. They should not have to move 
away just because the textile plant where they worked has closed down.
  Retraining will help. I am pleased that my amendment to help improve 
training programs was passed by the Senate last week, but that training 
is not going to matter if there are not new jobs to take the place of 
the ones they lost. We need to encourage investment in these trade-
affected areas so workers do not have to pack up their families and 
move to the city just to get a new job.
  That is what my proposal is about. It is modeled after Empowerment 
Zones and Renewal Communities. We'd create new Economic Revitalization 
Zones for areas hard-hit by trade. Economic Revitalization Zones, or 
ERZs, would be areas that have experienced major job losses in a 
critical industries as a result of trade agreements or shifts in 
production. Communities would be eligible for designation as ERZs if 
they are in a trade-affected state and a significant portion of their 
employment base was dependent on an industry substantially affected by 
trade. Benefits in ERZs would be similar to those in Renewal 
Communities and Empowerment Zones.
  Here are five examples:
  One, a 20-percent wage credit for the first $15,000 of wages paid to 
a zone resident who works in the zone;
  Two, commercial revitalization tax incentives [write-offs for 
companies that revitalize abandoned or dormant industrial property];
  Three, increased write-offs for capital investments;
  Four, authority to issue tax exempt bonds to promote business 
development; and
  Five, the New Market Tax Credit, which already provides incentives 
for businesses to invest.
  Economic revitalization zones would be a lifeline for communities 
that are suffering from the negative effects of trade agreements. We 
owe this to the hardworking families in these communities. As the 
industries they've relied on for decades are destroyed, the least we 
can do is to help them plan for the future.
  I believe this is an important proposal. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues who are on the Finance Committee to find other 
opportunities to advance this important initiative.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a long-held interest in Latin 
America, and, in my opinion, the renewal of the Andean Trade 
Preferences Agreement is one of the most important actions this 
Congress can take to promote economic growth, political stability, and 
prosperity in the Andean region.
  I have come to this floor many times in the past year to draw my 
colleagues' attention to the fact that Latin America is a region in 
crisis, that we ignore at our peril. I believe that it is imperative 
that we remain engaged with our neighbors to the South lest our neglect 
encourage even more instability in the region and foster conditions 
ripe for terror, destruction, and the collapse of democratic 
institutions. While I could speak for hours about the dangers posed by 
the horrors of drought and famine in Central America, the Argentine 
economic crisis, or the turmoil in Venezuela, I will limit my comments 
today to the problems faced by the Andean region, and my belief that we 
must have a multi-faceted approach to alleviating the crisis in the 
region through military, humanitarian, and economic aid.
  The Andean region is reeling from economic crises, natural disasters, 
and the effects of the war against drugs. Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, 
Venezuela, and Bolivia confront economic and social problems that 
threaten the very fabric of Democracy in the region. Up till now, with 
the possible exception of Venezuela, the governments of these countries 
have done a good job of managing their problems in the face of near-
impossible odds. But, I believe, without consistent and steady U.S. 
involvement, and a greater willingness of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru to 
coordinate their efforts in drug eradication with Colombia, the 
situations in these countries could become quickly unstable. We must 
remain continuously engaged and stop the cycle of neglect by which 
attention is focused on Latin America for short bursts of time, only to 
recede when a crisis is over. We cannot allow the region to languish 
and fester while we ignore warning signs.
  I have spoken about Colombia numerous times on this floor, and, in 
fact, just held a hearing on the Colombia situation in the Foreign 
Relations Committee last month. I would like to take a moment to 
restate some of my comments from that hearing and alert my colleagues 
to some horrific statistics about the state of violence in Colombia. 
Colombia's democracy is in crisis, and it didn't happen over night. 
Colombia's civil society has been ripped apart for decades by violence 
and corruption, and has long been characterized as having one of the 
most violent societies in the Western Hemisphere. Historically, 
Colombian civil leaders, judges and politicians have put their lives in 
jeopardy simply by aspiring to positions of leadership and 
responsibility. The introduction of illicit drug cultivation and 
production has only heightened further this climate of violence. 
Despite fears that must be pervasive in every Colombian's heart, tens 
of thousands of men and women have still allowed their names to appear 
on electoral ballots in election after election. These are truly 
courageous people who deserve our respect and admiration.
  Two years ago, I supported US efforts to become partners with the 
Pastrana administration's efforts to address Colombia's problems. I 
said at the time that I believed that it was critically important that 
we act expeditiously on the Plan Colombia assistance package because 
our credibility was at stake with respect to responding to a genuine 
crisis in our own hemisphere. We also needed to make good on our pledge 
to

[[Page S4813]]

come to the aid of President Pastrana and the people of Colombia in 
their hour of crisis, a crisis that has profound implications for 
institutions of democracy in Colombia and throughout the hemisphere.
  No one I know claims that things have dramatically ``turned around'' 
in Colombia since the United States endorsed Plan Colombia and began 
providing significant resources to support its implementation. 
Narcotraffickers, in concert with right and left wing paramilitary 
organizations, continue to make large portions of the country 
ungovernable. Until recently their activities were restricted to 
sparely populated rural areas of the country--places where government 
order and services have never existed. Now, with the end of the FARC/
Government peace process and in an effort to disrupt upcoming 
elections, the FARC is increasingly focused on urban areas, especially 
critical economic infrastructure.
  In the last 15 years, more than 200 bombs have exploded in Colombian 
cities. The number of assassinations is egregious. More than 300,000 
ordinary citizens, 4 presidential candidates, 200 judges and 
investigators, one half of Colombia's Supreme Court, 1,200 police, and 
151 journalists, have been murdered. Politicians such as Senator Martha 
Daniels have been killed while trying to negotiate peace, and municipal 
officials are constantly running for their lives. As if this were not 
bad enough, Colombia also holds the world's kidnapping record, with 
3,700 abductions last year alone. Among those abducted, 50 were 
political candidates, such as Ingrid Betancourt, who is running for 
President, and one was a governor.
  The rebel groups in Colombia have declared war on democracy and on 
the people of Colombia. According to recent news reports, on May 2 the 
largest single massacre of civilians in the recorded history of the 
conflict in Colombia took place. It began on May 1, in the village of 
Bellavista, over 300 people sought refuge in St. Paul the Apostle 
church from door-to-door fighting between left and right-wing 
paramilitaries. But, in the violence-charged atmosphere of Colombia, 
even the refuge of a holy place was not enough to protect the 
townspeople of Bellavista. Shortly before noon on May 2nd, a bomb 
thrown by leftist rebels of the FARC collapsed the roof of St. Paul the 
Apostle, and 117 innocent civilians were killed--over a third of them 
children.
  I grieve for the families of the deceased, and want them to know that 
their pain and sacrifice has not gone unnoticed in the United States. 
The massacre of Bellavista is just yet another event in a series that 
illustrates why the United States has a responsibility to remain 
actively engaged in Colombia's struggle. We must help prevent 
atrocities such as this massacre from ever happening again through a 
combination of economic, humanitarian, and military aid. This 
nonsensical murder of civilians in Colombia must stop, and it must stop 
now. While we are doing all we can to help stop these killings through 
Plan Colombia, the ripple effects of the region's crisis are felt by 
all of Colombia's neighbors--Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela. 
Colombia's problems have a profound impact on the stability and 
security of the entire region.
  The region's economy is in distress, causing significant unemployment 
and hardship among the middle class. The economic situation in the 
countryside is equally troublesome--a significant percentage of its 
rural population is barely able to eke out a living--with millions 
already displaced from their villages from economic necessity or fear 
of civil conflict. Not surprisingly, these displaced persons have 
become the innocent foot soldiers in the ever-expanding illicit coca 
production that gets processed into cocaine and ultimately finds its 
way into America's schools and neighborhoods.

  United States financial assistance has been heavily focused on the 
military component of Colombia's counter narcotic effort with lesser 
amounts available for other programs such as alternative development 
programs, protection of human rights workers, resettlement of displaced 
persons, and judicial and military reforms. The United States can do 
more to assist the region, particularly its economies by reauthorizing 
and expanding the coverage of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. 
This would help the region work its way out of its current economic 
recession by giving a boost to key domestic industries while creating 
more jobs for average citizens--other than in the coca fields.
  Since 2000, the United States has committed almost $2 billion to the 
Andean region in support of Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional 
Initiative. As I have stated, although I continue to support these 
initiatives, they alone will not resolve the region's problems. We must 
complement this assistance with extension of ATPA. By addressing the 
economic needs of the area, as well as the military and humanitarian 
needs we can begin to address the root causes of the narcotics industry 
and violence, while assisting Colombia's neighbors in protecting their 
nations from allowing the same problem to spread.
  ATPA has been constructive in stimulating increased trade with 
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, but there is still a lot of work 
to be done. The full impact of ATPA has been somewhat lessened by the 
exclusion of key economic sectors from the agreement. A more robust 
ATPA is needed if we are truly going to make a difference with respect 
to the lives of people in that region. Extension of the ATPA will offer 
more opportunities to our Andean trading partners, while also enabling 
us to further pursue our own national interests in the region. Poverty 
and hopelessness are the incubators for lawlessness and civil strife. 
The job creation and economic development that is part and parcel with 
expanded trade opportunities are vital to enfranchising the middle 
class in the political process and preventing rural residents from 
turning to cocoa as a crop of desperation.
  With the ATPA, we can encourage the growth of legitimate businesses 
that will benefit producers and consumers in our country and within the 
Andean pact. Since the ATPA was enacted in 1991, the primary goal of 
the agreement has been to promote export diversification and broad-
based, sustainable economic development throughout the region. There is 
evidence that this initiative has borne fruit. From 1992 to 2000, the 
years of implementation of ATPA, total coca cultivation in Bolivia 
declined by 68 percent, and in Peru by 74 percent. This decrease is the 
result of aggressive eradication programs coupled with crop 
substitution by farmers in the region who have then taken advantage of 
ATPA provisions to market their products in the US. In so doing, ATPA 
has done more than expand trade, it has strengthened America's War on 
Drugs and the Andean region's fight against drugs and traffickers. The 
renewal of the ATPA is a lifeline to Andean farmers and workers who 
want to have legal employment but will do whatever they have to in the 
absence of mainstream job opportunities to feed their families--
including the cultivation of illicit crops.
  ATPA has accomplished all this without negative effects at home. 
Between 1991 and 2000, Andean exports to the U.S. increased 124 
percent. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 2000, 
bilateral trade was valued at more than $18 billion and the Andean 
Community was the 16th largest consumer of U.S. exports. In comparison, 
the value of U.S. exports to the Andean Community was 1.3 times greater 
than that which was exported to the Central American Common Market. 
This is nearly twice as large as exports to Eastern Europe.
  As we move forward to extend the ATPA, I realize that for some, the 
issues of textile and tuna are delicate and contentious. I think that 
it is important to note that the extension of trade preferences to tuna 
in airtight containers would promote employment in the local 
industries, and help depressed areas in the beneficiary countries 
through higher value-added exports with a true potential and minimal 
impact on U.S. industry. Unfortunately, the ATPA bill before the Senate 
contains restrictions which would grant the duty free benefits to 
imported canned tuna from the Andean countries, but limit the quantity 
to 20 percent of the U.S. domestic canned tuna production in the 
preceding calendar year. The quota that would be imposed makes the duty 
free benefit virtually meaningless.

[[Page S4814]]

  The principlal beneficiary of the tuna provision is Ecuador--a 
government that has been extremely cooperative in our efforts to 
implement first Plan Colombia and now the Andean Regional Initiative, 
although controversial among Ecuadorans, the Government of Ecuador has 
permitted to use the airfield at Manta as a forward operating location 
for critical activities in our regional counter rug programs. They have 
suffered from the spill over effects of Plan Colombia as guerrillas and 
peasants have crossed into Ecuador's territories and sanctuary. The 
Senate provisions falls far short of what Ecuador deserves in light of 
all its support. In my view the House provision granting duty free 
treatment to all imported canned tuna from the Andean countries is the 
more appropriate response to Ecuador's friendship and support for U.S. 
policies in the region. The argument that American Samoa will be harmed 
by the granting of this preference is bogus. One of the major employers 
in American Samoa, StarKist, has already indicated that it has no 
intention of reducing employment there even if the most generous 
version of the ATPA Tuna preference language is enacted into law.
  Expanding the ATPA to include textiles and apparel would not have a 
substantial negative impact on the U.S. economy. In 1999, textile/
apparel exports from Andean countries represented only 1.1 percent of 
the total textile and apparel exports to the United States. On the 
other hand, the United States is by far the largest market for Andean 
apparel exports, buying between 38 percent and 61 percent of all Andean 
apparel exports. In fact with the expansion of opportunities for Andean 
textile and apparel imports come increased opportunities for US 
fabrics, thread and even cotton exports to that region.
  By extending ATPA, the United States is sending a clear signal that 
we are going to continue the close and essential relationship we have 
established with our partners in the Southern Hemisphere. Given the 
extremely difficulties facing the region and the implication of those 
difficulties on US interests working to make that relationship work is 
very important. Taken together, these steps will generate jobs, 
strengthen civil society, and deter illegal narcotics trade. All steps 
strongly supported by the Congress and the American people.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
trade promotion authority. My decision to support this bill has not 
been an easy one. I respect the opinions of my colleagues who do not 
support trade promotion authority and I share many of their concerns.
  However, two issues have changed my thinking on this matter: the 
necessity of trade promotion authority to conclude multilateral trade 
deals and the substantive worker protection provisions contained in the 
bill.
  Therefore, I believe we must grant the President the trade promotion 
authority to reclaim U.S. leadership in the global trade arena and 
provide him the support he needs to conclude multilateral trade 
agreements that will benefit California and the United States as a 
whole. And, as this bill does, we must do so in a way that provides 
protection and support for workers who may be displaced from their jobs 
due to increased globalization.
  I have long supported free trade. Like many of my colleagues, I 
believe that expanding free trade and the exchange of goods, ideas, and 
services across the global marketplace is vital to the success of 
American industries, the creation of new jobs, and the economic well-
being of all Americans.
  My home State of California, which ranks among the top economies in 
the world and leads the country in exports, has greatly benefitted from 
past free trade agreements and stands to gain even more from future 
negotiations.
  Now, I understand that many of my colleagues will point out that this 
administration and its predecessor have concluded and signed trade 
agreements since fast-track expired in 1994. No doubt this is true and 
no doubt it will continue to be true.
  Yet those agreements have been bilateral trade agreements. Many 
bilateral agreements have been signed without fast track authority.
  One recent and noteworthy example is the United States-Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement. I voted for that agreement and I believe it is 
important tool to advance the cause of peace and stability in the 
Middle East.
  But while the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is 
politically vital, economically it is rather small bilateral trade 
between the two countries is approximately $600 million.
  Multilateral negotiations, on the other hand, such as those aimed at 
establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas or the Doha round of 
global trade talks, involve far more countries, far more negotiators, 
and far more billions of dollars worth of trade.
  As former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher told me, 
our trade negotiators need fast track to tackle the difficult, complex, 
and diverse issues that inevitably arise in multilateral talks and get 
our partners to put the best deal on the table. Without it, we simpliy 
can't close out these deals.
  If our partners know that they will have to negotiate with Congress 
after negotiating with the administration, the most sensitive issues, 
and the keys to unlocking new and expanding markets, will be taken off 
the agenda.
  Imagine if you were a party to a multilateral trade negotiation and 
you knew that a final agreement would be open to amendment by the U.S. 
Congress. You would never agree to put your best offer on the table and 
you would never agree to sign any agreement if you thought that the 
deal you negotiated--one that would provide multiple benefits to both 
sides--would be change.
  So, fast track becomes an imperative, if multilateral agreements are 
to be negotiated successfully.
  But we must also remember that some workers and some firms do suffer 
as a result of increased trade and we have an obligation not to leave 
them behind as global trade moves forward.
  So protection for workers is important and vital to any trade 
promotion authority bill.
  Consequently, I support the robust and expanded trade adjustment 
assistance package that will assist those workers in their time of need 
and help them find new jobs. Since 1962, trade adjustment assistance 
has been a bridge between the global economy and the local economy.
  Let their be no doubt that this bill is a step forward for American 
workers. It provides assistance, training, and support for workers as 
they move into a new career. Specifically, the bill expands eligibility 
for benefits to secondary workers such as suppliers and downstream 
producers who lose their jobs or may lose their jobs due to a loss of 
business with a firm whose workers are TAA certified; extends income 
support from 52 to 78 weeks; provides a 70 percent advanceable, 
refundable tax credit to help TAA workers make COBRA payments; 
increases assistance for job relocation and job searches; increases the 
training budget to $300 million; establishes a wage insurance program 
to provide support to older workers who lose their job due to trade and 
are forced to take a lesser paying job; establishes trade adjustment 
assistance programs for farmers, fisherman, and communities affected by 
trade, and finally; establishes a training program through the Small 
Business Administration for TAA-certified workers on how to start their 
own business.
  Finally, let me turn now to my role as a Senator from the State of 
California. California is like no other State. It is the fifth largest 
economic engine in the world with a $1.33 trillion economy. From high 
tech to agriculture, California is a leader in the U.S. and the global 
market, and it has greatly benefitted from free trade initiatives.
  In 2001, 14.6 percent of U.S. exports came from California, totaling 
$106.8 billion, tops in the Nation. Exports support more than one 
million jobs for Californians.
  Yet if California is to maintain its status as a global economic 
leader, our businesses and working people must have access to new and 
expanding markets around the world. Trade promotion authority, as I 
have indicated, is an important tool in that effort.
  Global trade is with us. We simply can not ignore that fact. Turning 
inward, building barriers, and shutting out the outside world is not 
realistic. We must deal with globalization and we must deal with it in 
a way that enhances the ability of American exports

[[Page S4815]]

to reach new and expanding markets, while at the same time promoting 
respect for labor rights and the environment and ensuring that no 
worker is left behind.
  Trade promotion authority is the best vehicle for Congress and the 
administration, working as partners, to build an effective trade agenda 
that advances U.S. interests at home and abroad.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this legislation which has passed the 
Senate today is a great bipartisan success. I am thankful to my 
colleagues for their support and willingness to work together in order 
to do this for the workers, farmers and companies of this country.
  I would first like to thank Senators Gramm and Breaux and their staff 
for helping to make this final vote possible. If it were not for their 
help in brokering a deal, we may not have reached this point today.
  I would also like to thank Senator Baucus and his excellent staff for 
all the hard work and dedication which has gone into this bill over the 
past year. I want to specifically thank Mike Evans and John Angell as 
well as the trade staff--Greg Mastel, Tim Punke, Ted Posner, Angela 
Marshall-Hoffman, Shara Aranoff, and Andy Harig. I appreciate their 
willingness to work with my staff to accomplish so much.
  I would also like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of Senate 
Legislative Counsel, for her hard work, and great expertise in drafting 
this bill.
  Finally, I would like to thank my staff, beginning with my Finance 
Committee staff director, Kolan Davis and my trade counsels Everett 
Eissenstat and Richard Chriss, who have worked tirelessly to bring this 
bill to fruition. I credit them with much of today's success. It was 
their hard work, along with the help of Carrie Clark and Tiffany 
McCullen-Atwell, that helped us to this point.
  I look forward to a productive conference, and swift passage of the 
conference report, so we can get this to the President's desk, and 
enacted into law.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Baucus-Grassley 
amendment granting the President trade promotion authority and renewing 
the trade adjustment assistance.
  While I do not support this particular bill, I am not opposed to 
trade and recognize the great economic benefit it has brought to my 
State. In South Carolina, many foreign firms have made substantial 
investments in manufacturing facilities. These plants, and the workers 
they employ, produce goods for domestic consumption and for export. 
Also, numerous American firms export their products. The volume of 
goods moving through the port of Charleston is an indication of the 
importance of trade to South Carolina. Charleston is one of the busiest 
seaports in America.
  History has taught us that in order for countries to buy from us, we 
must buy from them. Indeed, our continuing trade deficit shows just how 
much of this we as Americans do. The problem is that too many of our 
trading partners refuse to trade with us fairly. They want to export to 
the American market, but they do not want to let our products into 
their domestic markets. I would note that the United States Trade 
Representative has published his 2002 National Trade Estimate Report on 
Foreign Trade Barriers. In this annual report, numbering 455 pages, he 
catalogs the barriers ``affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, 
foreign direct investment by U.S. persons, and protection of 
intellectual property rights.'' Clearly, this report indicates our 
trade negotiators have much to do to get our trading partners to open 
their markets to U.S. exports.
  The United States has long been the leader in promoting trade. In 
1994, the United States entered into the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, NAFTA, and 1 year later became a charter member of the World 
Trade Organization, WTO. NAFTA established a free trade area between 
the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The WTO was an endeavor to 
establish an international organization and procedures to reduce and 
hopefully eliminate capricious and arbitrary barriers to trade.
  NAFTA opened the doors to imports of textiles and apparel from 
Mexico. While the potential for cheap textile and apparel imports was 
greater under the WTO, the WTO contains an Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing, ATC, which would eliminate all quotas on textile and apparel 
products beginning on January 1, 2005. The ATC provides the U.S. 
textile and apparel industries with a ten-year transition period to 
prepare for this elimination. However, this ATC adjustment phase has 
been repeatedly breached by legislative actions such as the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, as well as 
Executive Branch decisions permitting additional import quotas for 
nations such as Pakistan and Turkey. Additionally, American textile and 
apparel industries have been seriously harmed by substantial 
transshipments of apparel. As a result, U.S. textile and apparel 
industries are being subjected to more and more unfair international 
competition without the full benefit of the transition period permitted 
under the ATC.
  Because of these unfortunate and short-sighted policies, almost 
700,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. Nearly 
55,000 jobs were lost in South Carolina with a devastating effect on my 
State's economy. This is compounded by the thousands of jobs that have 
been lost in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as 
other States. These numbers do not include the lost jobs in the steel, 
furniture, and other manufacturing industries. In addition there are 
the job losses in secondary industries such as equipment makers, 
service firms, and transportation enterprises. Finally, there are the 
community job losses in the local businesses, including department and 
grocery stores, pharmacies, and automobile dealerships, to just name a 
few. The cost to local communities is staggering. While the toll on all 
those who lose their jobs and their families is horrendous, it is even 
worse on older workers who have little chance of finding meaningful 
employment.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act, 
ATPA, seeks to renew a program that provided preferential, mostly duty-
free, treatment of selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia, 
Ecuador, and Peru that expired on December 4, 2001. The purpose of the 
ATPA is to encourage growth of a more diversified Andean export base, 
thereby promoting development and providing an incentive for Andean 
farmers and other workers to pursue economic alternatives to the drug 
trade. While this is a laudable goal, my objection is to those 
provisions of this legislation that would give Andean textile and 
apparel products the same preferences given to those from Mexico and 
the Caribbean Basin. This action will further erode the quota 
protection provisions guaranteed to the U.S. textile and apparel 
industries under the ATC. These increases in textile and apparel 
imports into the United States will further destabilize the American 
textile and apparel industries during the critical ten-year transition 
period and result in the loss of more American jobs.
  This bill also reauthorizes Trade Promotion Authority. Trade 
promotion authority allows the President to negotiate trade agreements 
and submit them to the Congress for approval or defeat. No amendments 
are allowed, therefore no improvements can be made to such agreements.
  My concerns are that future trade negotiators will be more interested 
in getting an agreement, any agreement, no matter what the cost to 
American manufacturing, rather than protect the best interests of the 
United States. The emphasis of American representatives in previous 
trade talks has clearly been for free trade at the expense of fair 
trade. The current state of U.S. manufacturing is evidence of this sad 
fact. So granting the President TPA will result in the Congress being 
presented with no alternative other than to vote for or against the 
total agreement. I do not believe this is consistent with the 
Constitutional responsibilities of the United States Congress.
  Particularly troubling about this grant of TPA is that our trade 
negotiators have, and continue to place in negotiation, U.S. trade 
remedy laws. What we need, Mr. President, are not weaker trade remedy 
laws but stronger ones. In addition, to the responsibility of 
protecting U.S. workers and their employers, we have a strategic 
defense

[[Page S4816]]

interest in promoting and strengthening American manufacturing as 
opposed to letting it wither away. Again, what I am advocating is fair 
trade not free trade.
  Finally, included in the legislation is the renewal of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance, TAA. I support TAA without reservation, and I 
have in the past attempted to strengthen TAA by making the 
certification process easier. I regret that this TAA renewal provision 
is part of this legislation and was not considered separately.
  In closing, I wish to state that I am for trade, fair trade. The sad 
experience of our Nation with so-called ``free trade'' is that it 
results in the loss of American manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, this 
legislation will pass the Senate and will undoubtedly be signed into 
law by the President. I call upon the President and administration 
officials to negotiate for fair trade. I hope in the future 
negotiations are conducted which result in rules that do not 
discriminate against American industry and agriculture, and which 
require our trading partners to open their domestic markets to U.S. 
products.
  Because of the thousands of jobs that have been lost, not only in my 
State of South Carolina but in the Nation as a whole, and because of 
the jobs which will be lost in the future, I will vote against this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been astonished that the Senate--the 
very institution in which Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, 
Robert Wagner, and Richard Russell once made important national policy, 
even it it meant defying presidents--would sit back and humbly and 
meekly allow the interests of the workers in their states to be 
sacrificed upon the altar of the false promise of free trade.
  These past few weeks, I have been even more disturbed that some would 
allow their concerns and their opposition to fast-track authority to be 
bought off with another false promise--the false promise of enhanced 
trade adjustment assistance for workers impacted by trade.
  I am not opposed to trade adjustment assistance in its intent and 
purpose. Trade adjustment assistance provides an important service when 
and where it is needed. But trade adjustment is not a panacea. Trade 
adjustment assistance is not a substitute for a job. Trade adjustment 
assistance is not a substitute for good trade policies. Trade 
adjustment assistance should never, never, be considered as a 
substitute for Congressional input into trade agreements, input that is 
essential for members of this chamber to be able to protect and promote 
the interests of our constituents.
  My opposition to giving fast-track authority to the executive branch 
is long-standing and unchanging. The Constitution obligates Congress to 
regulate foreign commerce. This means, at the least, that Congress must 
be an active participant in trade agreements, not a rubber stamp.
  Trade impacts every citizen of our country. It cuts across nearly 
every aspect of our lives and livehoods. The way of life and work for 
millions of American workers, for tens of thousands of American 
communities, are affected by the trade agreements. That is why trade 
issues must be debated and shaped by the legislative representatives of 
the people. It is the hardworking, responsible people back home who 
will keenly feel the impact of our trade policies.
  I was sent here to represent the interests of my State. I am going to 
do that to the best of my ability and this includes promoting and 
protecting the thousands of West Virginia workers whose lives are 
affected by trade agreements.
  It is difficult for me to understand why any member of this body of 
either political party, would surrender our constitutional prerogative 
to regulate trade to the executive branch.
  The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details. And fast track is 
asking the Congress of the United States to ignore the details, at 
great peril to the workers of our States.
  It is especially difficult to understand in this era when 
globalization has rendered the industries and workers of our States 
more and more vulnerable to the unfair, predatory trade practices of 
foreign countries.
  Our States are drowning under a flood of cheap foreign imports, and 
it is not just manufacturing industries. Free trade with Mexico has led 
to a flood of Mexican imports that devastated Florida's tomato industry 
and forced thousands of agricultural layoffs. China is dumping garlic 
on the United States and destroying the garlic industry in California.
  Since 1994, when NAFTA created the free trade zone, North Carolina 
has lost more than 125,500 jobs in the textile and apparel industries. 
The Mississippi Business Journal reports that the garment industry in 
Mississippi has virtually disappeared in the post-NAFTA era in that 
State.
  Last May, the New York Times told of the closing of a cotton factory 
in Jacksonville, AL, and the devastating impact of that plant closing 
on the town and its people. ``The good-paying textile jobs that built 
many of the towns in the industrial South,'' the story reported, ``have 
been vanishing for decades as manufacturers improve profits by moving 
to countries where labor is cheaper. The North American Trade Agreement 
. . . was a death knell for working people like the millers in 
Jacksonville.''
  The American trucking industry is being clobbered by unfair and 
unregulated Mexican trucking.
  The steel industry in Pennsylvania and West Virginia has been 
absolutely devastated by the dumping of cheap foreign steel and of 
foreign, government-subsidized imported steel. A few weeks ago, 
President Bush pointed out that, ``Fifty years of foreign government 
intervention in the global steel market has resulted in bankruptcies, 
serious dislocation, and job loss.''
  Estimates of job losses in the United States from NAFTA range from a 
half-million to more than a million.
  The impact of job dislocation is devastating communities across the 
country. The impact of being displaced, that is, losing your job due to 
a change in trade policy--that is, losing your job through no fault of 
your own--is devastating both psychologically and financially to the 
individual worker. For too many American workers, free trade has been 
and continues to be a long and frightening slide to financial disaster.
  Additionally, there is the risk of loss of health insurance. When one 
does not have insurance and, therefore, cannot pay for proper 
treatment, the result can be devastating.
  Compound this with the loss of retirement security. When people lose 
their jobs, they can no longer contribute to their retirement account. 
Worse, they are too often forced to take out their retirement savings 
in lump sum payments in order to make mortgage payments or to feed 
their families, or to pay their health insurance, thus wiping out the 
family's future economic security. Americans are living longer now. 
Many of them fear that they will not to able to depend upon Social 
Security for a decent retirement. They know that they will need these 
supplemental retirement savings. But, when displaced, and forced to 
drain their retirement accounts, that economic security is difficult to 
make up, if not lost forever.
  And, of course, there is the loss of income. In addition to the 
obvious loss of income between jobs, there is the additional loss of 
income when the displaced worker returns to lower-paying employment. 
Workers who lose higher wage, industrial jobs are often forced to take 
low-paying service jobs. Service jobs are notoriously lower paying jobs 
that offer limited opportunities for advancement.
  Studies of counties in Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi have found 
a declining standard of living for workers and their communities as 
they moved from manufacturing to service jobs.
  For many workers, the erosion in earnings after landing new 
employment is telling. In the latter part of the 1990s, the weekly 
earnings of all reemployed workers fell 5.7 percent on average. Workers 
displaced from high-tenure jobs showed an average drop in earnings of 
over 20 percent after they found new, full-time jobs.
  Even workers who manage to retain their jobs feel the impact of trade 
as the decline in American manufacturing has meant a declining standard 
of living, not just for the affected workers and their families but 
also for their communities and their States. With the rise of 
international competition

[[Page S4817]]

and the shift to lower wage service jobs in the United States, real 
wages have stagnated, making life much more difficult for all American 
workers. Today, even with some recovery in real wages due to the rapid 
growth in the economy in the 1990s, the average weekly wage is nearly 
12 percent less than at its peak in the 1970s. As I said, the devil is 
in the details, and these families see these details every day as they 
work harder and run faster, only to continue falling further behind.
  Is it any wonder that polls and surveys reveal that: 57 percent of 
all working adults oppose giving President Bush fast-track authority; 
78 percent of Americans believe that protecting American jobs should be 
a top priority in deciding U.S. trade policy; and 68 percent of 
Americans believe that trade details with low-wage countries such as 
Mexico lead to lower wages for American workers.
  Yet, I have sat back and watched in astonishment and shock as members 
of Congress have auctioned off this important constitutional obligation 
and the economic interests of their constituents for increased trade 
adjustment assistance benefits.
  Last year, the nonpartisan United States Trade Deficit Review 
Commission pointed out that, ``workers adjustment assistance has often 
been the last component of a package intended to increase Congressional 
support for approving new trade agreements. As such, it has often been 
viewed simply as an afterthough rather than as an integral component of 
our trade policy.''
  Trade adjustment assistance has become a labyrinth of rules and 
regulations. When the Trade Deficit Review Commission surveyed the 
states for ways to improve trade adjustment assistance training 
programs, the state agencies came up with more than 80 different 
recommendations.
  Now, Congress is about to be bought off for the promise of enhanced 
trade adjustment assistance; that is, more band-aids to cover a gaping 
hemorrhaging of the livelihoods of American workers!
  There is the promise of tax credits for health insurance--I am not 
sure how important tax credits are to unemployed workers who have no 
income.
  There is the promise of more retraining, but I am concerned that we 
may be retraining for jobs that will not be there.
  There is the band-aid of wage insurance. I point out that Congress 
tried this gimmick before with the 1988 Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act (OTCA), and it failed miserably. Two States were 
selected to test the program. One state rejected the program because 
they viewed it as too costly, bureaucratic and confusing. A single 
State was not considered enough of a sample from which to test the 
program, so the U.S. Department of Labor canceled the pilot program all 
together.
  The Trade Deficit Review Commission--the commission this Chamber 
created to make recommendations for changes in trade policy--made the 
important point that, for trade policy to be truly effective, trade 
adjustment assistance ``must be a comprehensive safety met available to 
all who need it.'' If trade adjustment assistance is to work, it must 
be comprehensive, flexible, and, according to the Trade Deficit Review 
Commission, it must be ``triggerless''--that is, it must provide 
benefits to workers who lose their jobs whether it is due to trade 
dislocation, technological changes, or other reasons.'' This means, 
among other things, that there must not be distinctions between primary 
or secondary workers. We must realize that trade impacts the community 
as well as the individual. Everyone is impacted and affected.
  Under the fast track legislation as it now stands, American truckers 
are ineligible for Trade adjustment assistance benefits because they 
are not considered ``worthy'' secondary workers.
  In promoting the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the legislation that 
also established trade adjustment assistance, President John F. Kennedy 
declared: ``There is an obligation to render assistance to those who 
suffer as a result of national trade policy.''
  It is an obligation, not a lever. It is an obligation, not a bone to 
be thrown to a Congress acting more like administration lap dogs than 
the legislative representatives of the American people.
  I repeat myself. Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for a 
job.
  Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for good trade policy, 
and good trade policy will only come from open debate, and the amending 
process--that is, the input from the members of this body who represent 
the interests of the people of our states and the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that no one is requesting a vote on 
the substitute or on cloture on the bill itself, and that the final 
action before the Senate will be a vote on the bill itself. Hearing no 
objection, Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture vote be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the substitute amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3401), in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAMM. Is this final passage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is final passage.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this will be the last vote of the 
evening.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let's stay.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brownback
     Helms
     Inouye
     Shelby
  The bill (H.R. 3009), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their outstanding work 
on getting to this point. This has not been easy. We have spent a lot 
of time. Obviously this is a very difficult measure. We have 
accomplished it. It is something I think we can look back on

[[Page S4818]]

with great satisfaction and great pride. It would not have happened 
were it not for the leadership of the Senators from Montana and Iowa.
  I must say, even though he doesn't want me to--he is embarrassed and 
gets frustrated when I do this--I thank the Senator from Nevada. As 
with so many pieces of legislation, this simply would not have happened 
without his masterful work on the Senate floor as well. I congratulate 
him.
  I thank all of the staff involved, my staff, Chuck Marr, and the 
staff of the committee and others.
  We now must turn to the schedule when we return.
  There will be no further votes this evening, and we will not be in 
session tomorrow.

                          ____________________