Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7817-S7839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Senate

Thursday, August 1, 2002

TRADE ACT OF 2002

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before we conclude today, I would be
remiss if I did not thank a number of people.
First, in the House, I want to thank Chairman Bill Thomas. He and I
disagree on some things--that's for sure. But we share a common goal of
both expanding trade and helping workers left behind by trade. And we
share the goal of getting this to the President's desk as soon as
possible so that we can help jump-start this economy. We worked
together to craft a strong trade bill--and I thank him for his efforts.
Second--I want to thank Congressmen Cal Dooley, John Tanner, and Bill
Jefferson, who helped craft the House fast track legislation, and also
Anna Eshoo and Ken Bentsen, who provided so much help on TAA.
In the Senate, I first want to thank Senator Daschle, who has helped
this trade bill move through every step of the process. I also want to
thank two Senators who played a key role during the committee process--
Senator Bingaman for his efforts on TAA and Senator Bob Graham on ATPA.
And I appreciate Senator Breaux's work both during the Senate
negotiations and during the conference.
I also want to give credit to a number of Senators whose efforts made
this legislation much better. Senators Dayton and Craig on trade laws;
Senator Edwards on the textile negotiating objectives and also on TAA;
Senator Kennedy on access to medicines; Senator Harkin on child labor;
Senator Inouye on some of the tuna provisions in ATPA, and Senators
Rockefeller, Murkowski, and Wellstone on benefits for steel retirees.
Finally, I, of course want to thank my partner on the Finance
Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley for being helpful throughout this
process.
Of course, to actually complete work on a major bill like this
requires the efforts of many others. For more than 18 months, many
staff members have made incalculable efforts to prepare this
legislation and move it to passage.
John Angell and Mike Evans oversaw the efforts of the Finance
Committee staff on this legislation and all other activities of the
Committee.
Greg Mastel led the effort on the Democratic staff to prepare this
legislation from the first round of hearings to the final Senate vote.
He was ably assisted by a tremendously skilled and energetic staff,
including Tim Punke, Ted Posner, Angela Marshall, Shara Aranoff, and
Andy Harig.
The Finance Committee health and tax staffs also played an important
role, especially Liz Fowler, Kate Kirchgraber, Liz Liebschutz, Mitchell
Kent, and Mike Mongan.
The Finance Committee also benefited from the able efforts of the
leading Republican staff members, Everett Eissenstat and Richard
Chriss.
In the House, the staff of the Ways and Means Committee and the New
Democrats who supported this bill deserve similar credit.
This legislation also literally would not have been possible without
the help of our skilled legislative counsel, Polly Craighill, Stephanie
Easley, and Ruth Ernst, and Mark Mathiesen.
Finally, I would say a word of thanks to the many members of the
Administration who staffed and supported this legislative effort,
including Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Peter Davidson, John Veroneau,
Heather Wingate, Brenda Becker, Penny Naas, and many others.
I--as well as the Senate and the country--owe you all a debt of
gratitude.
I also rise today to thank one additional person who played an
enormous role in the passing of this trade bill--Howard Rosen.
I do not believe there is a person in this country who feels more
passionately about the TAA legislation than Howard Rosen. He helped
write this bill, he worked hard to encourage Members of the Senate and
Members of the House to support this bill, and he is a big reason that
we now have such a good TAA program.
And I know Howard's efforts will not end here. I know he will keep
working to make TAA an even better program. We all owe him a great deal
of thanks.

anticircumvention

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention
a section of the conference agreement that is extremely important to
the future of the U.S. sugar program and to the workers and companies
in the domestic sugar industry. As the gentleman from Montana knows
very well, I am talking about Section 5203 of the Trade Act of 2002,
regarding sugar tariff-rate quota circumvention. The policy established
in Section 5203 on sugar tariff rate quota circumvention is very

[[Page S7818]]

important to the future of the sugar industry in Louisiana and the
United States.
Mr. BAUCUS. I am very familiar with Section 5203 and its importance
to the future of the domestic sugar industry, including the sugarbeet
growers and processors in Montana. I would like to take this
opportunity to commend Senator Breaux, Senator Craig, and Senator
Thomas for the work they have been doing to address the problem of
circumvention of the tariff-rate quotas on sugar and sugar-containing
products.
Mr. BREAUX. I accept those kind words on behalf of all of the
Senators who are working on this issue. Let me explain the problem
briefly. The price of sugar on world markets is almost always very low
and is often below the cost of producing sugar even in the most
efficient sugar industries. This phenomenon is caused by subsidization
of sugar exports by the European Union and other governments, and by
dumping by companies that must export their sugar at any price to avoid
harming their domestic markets.
The U.S. sugar program is intended to keep the price of sugar in the
U.S. market at a level that assures a reasonable return to U.S.
growers, processors and refiners of cane and beet sugar. A primary
component of the program is WTO-legal tariff-rate quotas on imported
sugar and sugar-containing products under Chapters 17, 18, 19 and 21 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These quotas keep
world price sugar from disrupting the U.S. sweeteners market and assure
countries that are historical suppliers of the U.S. market that they
will benefit from U.S. prices.
If the tariff-rate quotas do not keep dumped world price sugar off
the U.S. market, the sugar program will be severely damaged. Therefore,
it is essential that attempts to circumvent the tariff-rate quotas be
identified and stopped promptly.
Mr. BAUCUS. I agree. Circumvention definitely has been a problem for
the sugar industry. Do you have some examples of such practices?
Mr. BREAUX. There are many different kinds of circumvention. For
example, designing and importing nonquota sugar-containing products
that have no commercial use or using processing technologies that make
commercial extraction of sugar from historically traded nonquota
products an economically viable source of sugar. A specific example of
one kind of circumvention is stuffed molasses, in which sugar is added
to molasses outside the United States and removed from the molasses
after importation in the United States. Another example is a product
that is created by interrupting the normal refining process of raw cane
sugar after the first removal of sugar, or first ``strike,'' outside
the United States, addition of that product to raw cane sugar while it
is being refined in the United States. These are not the only methods
used for circumvention. Importers will try variations of circumventing
products that were imported in the past, and they will try to devise
new methods for circumvention.

Section 5203 directs the Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner of
Customs to monitor continuously imports of products provided for under
Chapter 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the HTS for indications that products are
being used for circumvention. It is my understanding that
``continuously'' means looking at import statistics for each month. If
they see anything suspicious, such as significant increases in imports
over historic levels or a change in the ports of entry from the
historic pattern, they will look into the transactions to assure
themselves there is no circumvention or to determine precisely how the
circumvention is being carried out. The Secretary and the Commissioner
shall report their findings and make recommendations for action to
Congress and the President every six months in a public report.
Mr. BAUCUS. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Co-Chair
of the Conference Committee, I agree that you have accurately described
this important section and its intent.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Chairman Baucus for clarifying this issue. You
clearly understand the importance we attach to this monitoring,
reporting, and recommendation program. I also want to emphasize that we
expect the Secretary of Agriculture and Commissioner of Customs to move
quickly as soon as H.R. 3009 is signed into public law to establish an
effective monitoring, reporting and recommendation program under
section 5203.

agoa

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to ask the chairman of the Finance
Committee to engage in a colloquy for the purposes of clarifying
several provisions in this conference report as they relate to the
African Growth and Opportunity Act, known as AGOA.
Mr. BAUCUS. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on that
subject.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Section 3108(a)(3) of the conference report amends
section 112(b)(3) of AGOA, which provides for duty-free access for
apparel made from regional fabrics, subject to a quantitative cap.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
Mr. GRASSLEY. As I understand it, section 112(b)(3) of AGOA, as
amended by the conference report, would also cover garments made from
regional fabrics that also incorporate U.S. formed fabrics made from
U.S. yarns, U.S. formed yarns, or U.S. formed fabrics not made from
yarns that are classifiable under heading 5602 or 5603 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. An example of this
might be a tailored coat made from African wool, that incorporates U.S.
fabrics, linings, interlinings, or pocketing material. As you
understand it, would such a garment be eligible for benefits under this
provision?
Mr. BAUCUS. I believe that such a garment would be eligible for
benefits under that provision. A garment entered under the regional
fabric provision of AGOA is not ineligible for benefits simply because
it happens to incorporate U.S. yarns, fabrics, or components.
Mr. GRASSLEY. A related question concerns the increase in the
quantitative cap, provided for in Section 3108(b) of the conference
report. As I understand it, the cap increases represent an approximate
doubling of the percentages used in setting the caps under current law,
except the increase can only be used for garments containing regional
or a mixture of regional and U.S. inputs.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. The cap is set as a percentage of the
aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported
into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data
are available. Under current law, the applicable percentage for the 1-
year period beginning October 1, 2000 was 1.5 percent. The applicable
percentage increases by equal annual increments, so that for the period
beginning October 1, 2007, the applicable percentage does not exceed
3.5 percent. Under that formula, the applicable percentage for the 1-
year period beginning October 1, 2002 will be approximately 2.072
percent. Under section 3108(b)(1) of the conference report, that
percentage will be increased by 2.17 percent. In other words, the new
applicable percentage for the year beginning October 1, 2002 will be
4.242 percent. However, with respect to the increase over current law,
i.e., the additional 2.17 percent in the year beginning October 1,
2002, garments must be made from regional or a mixture of regional and
U.S. inputs.
The conference report further provides that in future years, the
applicable percentage will increase by equal increments, such that the
applicable percentage for the 1-year period beginning October 1, 2007
will be not greater than 7 percent. For each year, the increase over
the applicable percentage under current law pertains only to garments
made from regional or a mixture of regional and U.S. inputs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate the clarification.

tuna certification of origin in the andean trade preference act

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have long been involved in dolphin
conservation efforts. In the past, tuna boats were one of the leading
causes of dolphin mortality. As a result of legislation that I and
others worked on, tuna fishing practices have been modified and dolphin
deaths have dropped dramatically.
In part, that success has come from clear regulations regarding
dolphin-safe fishing practices and requirements that must be met before
tuna can receive the ``dolphin-safe'' label. The

[[Page S7819]]

United States tracks foreign tuna and determines whether it is dolphin-
safe by requiring foreign parties to supply a Certificate of Origin for
imported tuna. Specifically, I am referring to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Form 370, which is required under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
I am concerned that the reference to a Certificate of Origin in
Section 3103(b)(5) of H.R. 3009 may inadvertently create some confusion
regarding existing tuna certificate requirements. It is my
understanding that the Chairman of the Finance Committee did not intend
for this section to affect existing requirements that imported tuna be
accompanied by a Certificate of Origin (i.e. NOAA Form 370) as required
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that nothing in the conference
report supercedes or repeals the provisions of law to which the Senator
from California refers.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is also my intent that the Andean Trade
Preference Act not pertain to existing requirements that foreign
parties provide a Certificate of Origin for tuna imported into the
United States. This certificate, or Form 370, is necessary to verify
whether imported tuna qualifies for the ``dolphin-safe'' label. This
bill should not affect that process.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues.

trade adjustment assistance for fishermen

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to engage
in a colloquy with the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus and the
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux.
I would like to congratulate you both on your work in the Finance
Committee and particularly thank you for your dedication to passing a
strong Trade Adjustment Assistance bill. This is a strong step forward
for U.S. workers indeed; however, I would like to seek your
clarification as to whether fishermen are eligible for the program.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Kerry. I would also like to thank you
for all of your efforts in helping both in the Committee and on the
floor to draft a strong bill that addresses the needs of America's
businesses, farmers, and workers.
It was certainly my intent as Chairman of the Finance Committee and
the lead conferee on the part of the Senate to make fishermen eligible
for the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers program. It is my
understanding that Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers covers all
commodities (including livestock) in the raw or natural state. The
Trade Act of 1978, defines the term ``livestock'' to cover not only
cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry (including egg-producing poultry),
and equine animals used for food or in the production of food, but also
``fish used for food.'' Also, the Food for Peace program, otherwise
known as P.L. 480, includes ``fish'' under its definition of
``agricultural commodity.''
Mr. BREAUX. Senator Baucus, I was a member of the conference
committee as well and it was my understanding that fish would be a
qualifying agricultural commodity for the purpose of this act. Is that
correct?
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, my intent is that fish--wild, farm-grown, or
shellfish--and inherently fishermen, be considered for the purpose of
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for farmers. Also, fishermen
can apply and should be eligible for the regular TAA for workers
provisions.
Further, there is also a study added to the conference report on the
topic of fishermen and TAA. It is my hope that this study will address
the recent controversy about the application of the TAA for firms to
fishermen as well as provide direction on future approaches to ensuring
that fishermen are treated equitably under TAA, including whether a
separate TAA for Fishermen program should be created.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you for that clarification, Senator Baucus. It is
important that we make these programs work for all of America's
workers, and I look forward to working with you to make that happen. It
is my understanding that the Administration is preparing letters
specifically outlining TAA eligibility for fishermen, and I look
forward to receiving those very soon.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3009, the Trade Act of 2002 and
urge my colleagues to support cloture and final passage of the bill.
This bill is the product of over a year and a half of intense
negotiations, discussion, and debate among Republican and Democrats in
both Houses of Congress. Because of these efforts, the Trade Act
strikes a solid and balanced compromise among a number of key issues
and competing priorities. It is a product which should receive broad
support here in the Senate today.
The Trade Act of 2002 renews Trade Promotion Authority for the
President for the first time in almost a decade. Through a spirit of
compromise, Democrats and Republicans were able to break the deadlock
of TPA and reach a balanced compromise on a number of key issues.
For example, for the first time TPA contains a negotiating objective
on labor and the environment. Negotiators are directed to seek
provisions in trade agreements requiring countries to enforce their own
labor and environmental laws. These negotiating objectives also
recognize a country's right to exercise discretion and establish its
own labor and environmental standards without being subject to
retaliation.
The bipartisan TPA provisions also contain carefully balanced
provisions on investment, which preserve the fundamental purpose of the
investor-state dispute settlement procedures while ensuring that they
are not subject to abuse. The TPA provisions preserve the ability of
the United States to enforce our trade remedy laws which help combat
unfair trade practices.
Finally, they contain unprecedented consultation procedures which
ensure meaningful and timely consultations with Congress every step of
the way, without curtailing the President's ability to negotiate good
agreements.
In short, the Bipartisan TPA bill provides the President with the
flexibility he needs to negotiate strong international trade agreements
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. And it does so without undermining the fundamental purpose
and proven effectiveness of Trade Promotion Authority procedures. It is
an extremely solid bill which I am proud to support.
I would like to include some material for the Record which provides
some background on how we got to where we are today.
Today we are on the verge of passing this critical bill and sending
it to the President's desk for his signature. I want to recognize
Chairman Baucus' strong efforts during the recent House-Senate
conference on the Trade Act. I think they were key to our success.
I would now like to briefly outline two other provisions in the
bill--Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Andean Trade Promotion Act.
First on TAA. The Trade Act reauthorizes and improves Trade
Adjustment Assistance for America's workers whose jobs may be displaced
by trade. I think the TAA provisions in the Trade Act are a vast
improvement over the legislation that passed the Senate. The Senate TAA
bill would have entirely rewritten existing law. In doing so, the
Senate bill added a number of new, costly definitions, time-lines and
ambiguous administrative obligations. The Trade Act removes these
burdensome and ill-advised changes.
Unlike the Senate bill, the Conference Report simply amends and
builds upon existing law. It adds new provisions which help to actually
improve the TAA program while maintaining its linkage to trade. The TAA
provisions in the Trade Act consolidate the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs,
thereby establishing a uniform set of requirements. It triggers
immediate provisions of rapid response and basic adjustment services
and streamlines the petition approval process.

The act also reduces by one-third the time period in which the
Secretary must review a petition. At the same time, the TAA provisions
drastically scale back the number of workers who can be eligible for
TAA, thereby ensuring that only those workers who are truly impacted by
trade and in need of

[[Page S7820]]

retraining are eligible for assistance. The Trade Act includes a 65
percent health insurance tax credit, and presents a firm, clear
alternative to expanding Medicaid and over government run health
insurance coverage.
In short, the Trade Act improves the Senate passed TAA bill and
represents a more balanced approach to ensuring that workers displaced
by trade get the assistance and training they need to quickly re-enter
the workforce and compete in the international environment.
There is another extremely important provision in the Trade Act that
I would like to briefly mention, and that is the Andean Trade Promotion
and Drug Eradication Act. This provision will help eradicate drug
trafficking in the Andean nations by helping to create new employment
opportunities for the citizens of Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru.
It is a vital piece of legislation for our Andean neighbors and a
critical tool in our effort to fight drug trafficking.
The intent of the Andean Trade Preference Act, from the beginning,
was to advance our efforts to combat illegal drug production and
trafficking. It was then and is now not so much a trade initiative as
it is an effort to assist important allies in a critical fight. The
nations of Latin America expect us to continue to stand by their side
as we fight the scourge of drugs. They have paid a high price to aid us
in this effort. It is a battle we cannot afford to lose. So we cannot
fail to do our duties as legislators and provide them with the support
they need with this important legislation.
Before I conclude, I want us to step back and take a look at the big
picture.
I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. There are
provisions in this bill which I do not support and there are many items
I wish were in the bill that are not. But all in all it is a good,
fair, and balanced package. It deserves our strong support, especially
in this changing international environment.
International trade has long been one of the most important foreign
policy and economic tools in our arsenal. It was a key component of our
post-World War II international economic strategy. For over fifty years
international trade contributed to stability and economic growth
throughout the world. It helped to lift the nations of Europe and Asia
out of the ashes of World War II. And it helped America experience
unprecedented prosperity here at home. International trade can play a
similar role at the beginning of the twenty-first century. But our
nation must have the tools to lead. This bill will make a difference.
Nations around the world are waiting for our call and our leadership.
Today, the eyes of the world are on the Senate. We cannot let them
down. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, vote for
cloture and final passage of the bill.
I ask unanimous consent to print the information I earlier referenced
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Transcript Excerpt From the Mark-up of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Bill S. 1209--December 4, 2001

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, I will repeat some of the things that I said the
other day.
The Chairman. It does not have to be obvious. You can
change.
Senator Grassley. Well, these are things that I think we
need to remind ourselves of, particularly the bipartisanship
of this committee.
When this mark-up began last week, I stated that I support
Trade Adjustment Assistance. I do not support it, though, in
the partisan way that this legislation has been advanced.
Now, you took time during your statement to show how there
had been cooperation among Republicans and Democrats to deal
with some things that ought to be in Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
So, my remarks in regard to the partisan way are related to
the bill containing provisions from the Democratically-passed
stimulus package that makes sweeping and permanent changes to
our health care system. Just as my colleagues on the other
side failed to work in a bipartisan fashion on economic
stimulus, they have followed the same course again on these
health provisions for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
These things should be taken up as part of our
consideration of health programs and not be mixed with, or at
least on the stimulus package, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
I think we have a situation here, as I said a week ago,
where we have got two very good bills. I think when we
finally get a Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, unless, for
instance, it were to have these health care provisions in it,
you have got a bill that will pass the Senate almost
unanimously.
I think that we would have a situation, if we got trade
promotion authority out of here, and one that I think would
be very much a bipartisan bill, would pass the Senate
overwhelmingly, not unanimously or near-unanimously like
Trade Adjustment Assistance might.
But when you are going to bring these bills to the floor of
the Senate where there is not an arrangement for both to go,
whether they go together or go separately, we have a
situation where there are two very popular public policy
decisions that could be on the Senate floor that could pass
by big margins. But one will not pass without the other. That
is not a whole lot different than when Trade Adjustment
Assistance first came in to public policy 40 years ago. They
kind of came in together.
So I want to say, again, that we must not lose sight of the
importance then of renewing the President's trade promotion
authority this year. I know that some members of this
committee believe that we should act only after the House has
acted on this very important piece of legislation.
But it appears to me that this is a criteria that is
selectively applied. All you have to do is look at what we
are doing this morning, marking up Trade Adjustment
Assistance legislation before the House has acted. We also
marked up fast track legislation in 1997 before the House
acted, and it was strongly bipartisan, that the committee
approved, with only one dissenting vote.
So making a committee vote on renewing the President's
trade negotiating authority contingent with House action is
not in accord with recent action of this committee, including
what we are doing here today.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I believe, and many members of
this committee believe, that Trade Adjustment Assistance
ought to be considered in tandem with legislation to renew
the President's trade negotiating authority.
This is not a new idea. When President Kennedy first
designed the Trade Adjustment Assistance program in
the 1960s, he specifically stated that adjustment
assistance was integrally linked to the Kennedy
Administration's overall efforts to reduce barriers to
foreign trade.
That linkage was explicitly stated in President Kennedy's
message to Congress when he announced that the first Trade
Adjustment Assistance program was to be part of the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962.
Here is what he said in 1962: ``I am also recommending as
an essential part of the new trade program that companies,
farmers, workers who suffer damage from increased foreign
import competition be assisted in their efforts to adjust to
that competition.''
Ever since President Kennedy created the linkage between
trade expansion and Trade Adjustment Assistance, that linkage
has been maintained, both by Democrat and Republican
administrations.
The linkage between Trade Adjustment Assistance makes
sense. It made sense when President Kennedy designed the
Trade Adjustment Assistance program in 1962, so consequently
it makes sense today. It ought to be preserved. I will oppose
any efforts to sever the historic linkage between trade
expansion and Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I again regret that we cannot get to
a vote by a date certain on the President's most important
trade policy initiative. As I said last week, we should not
call it trade promotion authority for the President because,
quite frankly, we are talking about trade promotion authority
for America.
That is because America will win if we can realize the
promise of opening new markets for our farmers, ranchers, and
workers. But America will also lose, our farmers, ranchers,
and workers will lose, if our effort to renew the President's
trade negotiating authority gets bogged down in partisan
bickering.
I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to
work with me on trade promotion authority for America. We can
do this. We must do it. We must do it in a bipartisan way, in
the great and enduring tradition of this committee.
I also might add that today is the day in which we are
going to start applying tariffs and other trade provisions to
the Andean Pact nations, because the Andean Pact lapses
today. I think that that is an example of our committee being
a little late from time to time on very important pieces of
trade policy that we should really push.
I think we ought to take into consideration that nations
that this committee expressed last week need our help, almost
unanimously--in fact, it was probably a unanimous vote--that
we move ahead with the Andean Pact.
It is too bad that we have not moved quickly enough so that
these nations continue to be helped, as they have been helped
under the Andean Pact, and as we would expand the Andean Pact
legislation to do even greater good for those nations to help
themselves.
Quite frankly, it is only trade and it is not going to be
aid that moves the economies of these nations along. It is
really a missed opportunity now that, after all these years
of

[[Page S7821]]

having the preferential treatment of imports from the Andean
Pact nations because we felt that it was very necessary to
help them to help themselves, which is what trade does, that
now there is going to be a greater cost, consequently less
trade. Obviously, the economies of these countries are going
to be hurt.
These are the very same countries that we feel we ought to
be helping, because that's where we need to strengthen their
economy so that they are not so dependent upon the drugs that
they produce that are coming to our country, and a lot of
other reasons as well, but that is a very important one for
our country.
So, I hope we have a very aggressive trade agenda, we move
forward. The most important one is trade promotion authority
for the President, regardless of what happens in the House of
Representatives, because I do not think that the Senate is
irrelevant on this issue of trade promotion authority.
I yield the floor.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. I agree with
you on the Andean Trade Preferences Act which has passed this
committee, and hopefully can be brought up and passed on the
floor this year.
The bill is now open for amendment.
Senator Hatch?
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for me to
offer my amendment?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator Hatch. All right. I will offer on amendment that
will add trade promotion authority language to the Chairman's
mark. In addition, my amendment would substitute the
Chairman's mark's TAA language with the administration's
Trade Adjustment Assistance proposal.
Traditionally, the Finance Committee has played a
leadership role in forging major bipartisan consensus
legislation in the areas of importance to the American
public. Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Grassley both rose to
that occasion in the tax bill earlier this year. Time and
time again, this committee stepped up to the plate in
difficult areas.
For example, we took the lead in 1997 in the Balanced
Budget bill and even found a way to weave the Children's
Health Insurance program into that critical legislation.
I take exception to the view that the prudent course is for
this committee to wait and see what the House does on TPA.
With all due respect, I simply do not agree with what the
Chairman said last week, that it would be a waste of time of
this committee and the whole Senate if we were to take up
fast track legislation prior to the House action.
Frankly, I am not sure that there is any better use of time
of this committee and the Senate than in trying to reach a
compromise on trade legislation that can help jump-start our
stagnating economy.
America is fighting a war against terrorism, and we are
fighting this war in the midst of a deepening economic
recession. As the unemployment statistics climb, it would
seem wise to aggressively pursue trade policies that help to
create new jobs for Americans.
We know that over the last decade, exports have accounted
for between one-quarter and one-third of U.S. economic
growth. We know that these export-related jobs pay about 13
to 18 percent higher than the average U.S. wage.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know about the farmers in Montana,
but in the Utah Agricultural Committee they have told me
that, in no uncertain terms, that community wants to see TPA
pass, because one in three farm acres go for exports. They
want to ship even more of their products overseas.
In my view, it was unfortunate that we let Ambassador
Zoellick go to Doha last month without the mandate that TPA
would have given the U.S. delegation. Economists estimate
that the next WTO trade round could bring an additional $177
billion in benefits to the United States. So, it is in our
national interests for U.S. negotiators to be leaders in
bilateral and multilateral trade initiatives.
Now, given these facts and circumstances, many of us just
do not understand how timely consideration of TPA legislation
continues to elude the committee's attention.
My amendment is simple. It has two features. First, my
amendment would have the committee adopt the same TPA
language that the committee reported to the Senate floor back
in 1997. Second, I would amend the amendment I filed last
week to replace the Chairman's mark on TAA with the
administration's Trade Adjustment Assistance proposal.
Now, with respect to trade promotion authority, I think
that my colleagues who served on the committee will recall
the provisions of old S. 1269 of the 105th Congress. There
was broad bipartisan support for this measure. It was adopted
by the Finance Committee on a voice vote.
Now, this amendment consists of carefully constructed
language. Twice, it has survived cloture votes on the Senate
floor, by a 69 to 31 vote on November 4, 1997, and by a 68 to
31 vote a day later.
Why do we not simply adopt this non-controversial support
of 1997 language again today? For example, we have heard all
year about the importance of labor and environment
provisions.
Here is what the 1997 bill and my amendment says on that
score. My amendment says, ``It is the policy of the United
States to reinforce the trade agreements process by promoting
respect for ``workers'' rights by seeking to establish in the
International Labor Organization a mechanism for the
systematic examination of, and reporting on, the extent to
which ILO members promote and enforce the freedom of
association, the right to organize and bargain collectively,
a prohibition on the use of forced labor, a prohibition on
exploitative child labor, and a prohibition on discrimination
in employment.'' What is wrong with that language?
With respect to the environment, my amendment calls for
``expanding the production of goods and trade and goods and
services to ensure the optimal use of the world's resources,
while seeking to protect and preserve the environment and to
enhance the international means for doing so.'' So, this
amendment addresses both labor and the environment, and it is
no wonder why it was so broadly supported back in 1997.
Now, I have been around here long enough not to be totally
shocked if my amendment is not adopted today. But I do want
to leave my colleagues across the aisle with the message that
I am prepared to listen to your concerns and work with you in
good faith across the aisle to fashion compromise bipartisan
TPA legislation that will get the job done.
I think that the bipartisan legislation put forward by
Senators Gramm and Murkowski might also serve as a good
vehicle to get us off the dime. Instead of sitting around
waiting for the House to act, why do we not send the House
and the American public a strong message that the Senate
intends to pass both trade promotion authority and Trade
Adjustment Assistance as soon as possible?
The political reality may be that both of these measures
may have to pass, or both may fail. We can accept failure for
either of these measures. While I do not believe that it
should be necessary to tie these two pieces together in one
bill, there are certain advantages of doing so. The
suspension of production by Geneva Steel in Utah last month,
the largest steel mill west of the Mississippi, has
underscored to me the importance of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, among other things.
For over 1,400 steelworkers and their families, the future
is not clear. Unfortunately, they can benefit from some help.
I want to commend Senator Rockefeller for his efforts on
behalf of the steel industry at the ITC.
With respect to Trade Adjustment Assistance, I am offering
the administration's proposal. We have with us at the table
Mr. Chris Spear, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the
Department of Labor, to discuss the details of the proposal.
But I want to make a few points about this part of my
amendment.
The administration's TAA proposal is a focused, balanced,
and revenue-neutral approach. It expands eligibility for
shifts in production benefits to workers displaced by shifts
in production to countries in which the U.S. enters into a
new trade agreement, thereby preserving the nexus between
trade and assistance.
Recognizing that it makes no sense to maintain two similar,
yet separate, TAA programs, the administration's proposal
consolidates administration of the TAA program and the NAFTA
TAA program. It modifies current requirements for training
waivers, specifying five conditions under which training
requirements may be waived.
Finally, perhaps the most innovative feature of the
administration's proposal is the creation of a trade
adjustment account option pilot program to offer the option
of a limp sum payment in lieu of traditional TAA benefits.
The bottom line for American workers and their families has
to be for Congress to successfully open up new markets for
U.S. goods for the new trade agreements that TPA legislation
will help spawn, and to help displaced workers through TAA.
The American people want us to work together to help solve
our Nation's problems. That is what we did with the counter-
terrorism legislation. That is what we will do with the
bioterrorism legislation that Senators Frist, Kennedy, Gregg,
and many of the others of us are developing. I hope that this
committee can meet the challenge we face in fashioning both
TAA and TPA legislation, and that is what this amendment
attempts.
So, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making this
rather lengthy statement, but I sure hope we can pass this
amendment.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Any comments?
Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this
amendment to renew the President's trade promotion authority.
Senator Moynihan said, when this bill was approved three or
four years ago, that it was, in his words, ``an extraordinary
agreement.''
Many of my colleagues who were on the committee four years
ago will recall that the 1997 bill was passed by the
committee before the House acted, with broad bipartisan
support. There was just one dissenting vote, as I recall.
It enjoyed equally strong bipartisan support on the floor.
The motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed was
approved by a vote of 69 to 31. This model of bipartisan
trade legislation should serve as our model today.
Because it was passed by such a wide and convincing
bipartisan margin just four years ago is not enough to
dismiss this bill by saying that times have changed. Trade
negotiating authority for the President was as controversial
then as it is now. The choices in front of us in 1997 were as
tough and as challenging then as they are now. The importance
of the United States' leadership in trade policy was as
important in 1997 as it is now.
Let us again reaffirm what Senator Moynihan said in 1997.
This is an extraordinary

[[Page S7822]]

agreement and it is worthy of continuation of this
committee's historic heritage of bipartisanship in U.S. trade
policy. I urge my colleagues to again vote in favor of this
legislation by adopting this amendment.
In regard to the amendment that Senator Hatch has of
connecting Trade Adjustment Assistance to it, as I stated in
my opening comments, this is also in regard to a tradition
that was started with trade promotion authority during the
Kennedy Administration.
So I would like to say a word on the administration's TAA
proposal because I think the administration has been unfairly
criticized in the last few days in the press about its
proposal and I would set the record straight.
A tremendous amount of effort has gone into developing the
administration's proposal. The administration put together a
working group consisting of four cabinet-ranked officials,
Secretaries Chao, Evans, and O'Neill, as well as Ambassador
Zoellick. They developed this proposal.
Countless hours were spent drafting and refining a proposal
that makes some very positive changes in our Trade Adjustment
Assistance laws. They also did this in a very responsible
way, from a budget point of view, that is. Rather than throw
money at the program, they came up with a revenue-neutral
approach that represents a serious and very reasonable
compromise.
So, I commend the administration this morning for their
outstanding work that has gone not their Trade Adjustment
Assistance proposal. That is part of Senator Hatch's
amendment. It is an excellent proposal and I think it
deserves the consideration of this committee and the support
of this committee.
The Chairman. Any further discussion?
Senator Breaux. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Breaux?
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Once
again, I think we have proved that we all can play great
defense, but the problem is, how do you get an offense
together? You cannot win unless you can score.
I think that we are in a situation now where our Republican
colleagues can prevent us from passing the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act, and we can prevent them from passing fast
track.
But I really question whether that is what we should be
doing. We should be passing things and getting things done
instead of just playing defense and blocking each other.
The House, I take it, is going to take up fast track on
Thursday and there is a real question of whether they are
going to pass it or not. It is very controversial over her.
The Chairman has made a decision that, let us wait to see
what our colleagues are going to do over in the other body.
If they pass the bill over there--which is questionable,
but I think they will probably put it together and get it
done--I think the Chairman has indicated that he is willing
to move forward on fast track over here and do both together.
Now, here it is, 11:00. We know that we are, I think, not
going to get anything done all day long in our committee.
That it unfortunate. It would seem that we could get some
kind of an agreement to see what the House is going to do,
take both of them up, and pass both of them. I mean, that is
what I would like to see done.
I am for fast track authority for this President, the last
President, and the next President. I think they ought to have
it. I think it is absolutely needed. I think the Trade
Adjustment Assistance bill is also very important. We have
got a situation where people need help, and this is a proper,
appropriate federal response.
So, it is unfortunate that the defense is going to win.
Defense is going to win this game today. That is pretty
clear. But I just suggest that there ought to be a way to
bring these concepts together and get both of them done. I
think that after Thursday when the House does it, is the
appropriate and proper time to do it. I am for fast track.
But I think I am certainly going to follow the leadership of
the Chair and say, let us wait and see what the House does.
That is just a practical way to handle it.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I might say also to my good friend from Utah
that it is my intention to bring up fast track before the
committee if, and when, the House passes the bill. Now, the
vote is scheduled for Thursday over in the House. I, frankly,
question the advisability of pressing for a fast track vote
here at this time in this amendment. This bill is going to
lose. That might have some adverse effect on the House vote,
I do not know. But I would just urge, therefore, the Senators
to withdraw the amendment because our goal here is to pass
both fast track and Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Now, the Chair will schedule a fast track mark-up next
week. Not the end of next week. It is in good faith, next
week, so that we could consider this bill. I think it is
unlikely that fast track will reach the floor of the Senate
this session. Highly unlikely. But, as I have said time and
time again, if the House dose pass fast track, I will move
it.
Senator Breaux. Yes, certainly.
Senator Breaux. I think the Chairman makes a good point. I
would say to our Republican colleagues, to Senator Hatch in
particular, we know what is going to happen with this vote. I
think, if we have a fast track vote in this committee today,
with the very fragile coalition we have in the House, this
could be a signal to the House members that the Finance
Committee killed it. I think that would be terrible for those
who wanted to get it passed. We all know what is happening. I
think it is a major point that it should be done.
But the House is on a string about whether they have enough
votes to pass this. Those who are opposed to it over there,
and some of them are Democrats, will use this vote in this
committee to help get the bill killed in the House, and
therefore prevent it ever coming up in the Senate. You have
made your point. Do not push it to a vote because it sends a
terrible signal. I think the Chairman is right on target on
that point.
Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Kyl?
Senator Kyl. If I could, just in response to that. I do not
understand something here. I guess I have not been on the
committee long enough. But if we are all for fast track, why
is the vote going to lose?
The Chairman. Because this is a vote for another fast track
bill. It is not even on the fast track that is before the
House. It is totally different.
Senator Kyl. If one ways it is totally different, then
nobody in the House should take anything from a vote on this
particular provision.
The Chairman. Well, but we all know that sometimes the way
results are written up by the press and around, and different
people interpret things different ways, I just think it is
inadvisable for us to do this.
Senator Kyl. I cannot believe the press would not write
this--
The Chairman. I cannot either, but sometimes it happens.
I might say, too, the House has twice defeated fast track
and it was withdrawn a third time. So, that is a very
legitimate question of whether the House is going to pass
fast track.
Senator Hatch. But would it not be comfortable if we did?
The Chairman. If I might continue.
Senator Hatch. I am sorry. I apologize.
The Chairman. I do not think we should waste our time here.
That is, if the House does not vote fast track this week,
then I think it is inadvisable for us to act this week, and
with so few days remaining.
Senator Grassley. Did you say in your previous statement,
the one befoe now, that you would have a mark-up next week on
fast track?
The Chairman. If the House passes fast track. Yes. If the
House passes fast track, I will have a mark-up next week on
fast track.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman?
Senator Bingaman. I wanted to also just say a word about
the other aspect of Senator Hatch's amendment. As I
understand it, is to adopt the Trade Adjustment Assistance
proposal the administration has made.
Senator Hatch. Right.
Senator Bingaman. I think that would be a major mistake and
a major disappointment for a lot of workers around the
country. The truth is, it is revenue-neutral. That means that
we are essentially saying that we will be spending no more on
Trade Adjustment Assistance in the future than we have spent
in the past.
Benefits will not be improved in any of the respects that
we are intending to in the bill that we are currently trying
to proceed with the mark-up on. There will be no assistance
to communities.
There will be no assistance to secondary workers. There
will be no extension of benefits from 52 to 78 weeks for
those who are trying to get training to go into other lines
of work. I think that would be a major disappointment for a
lot of people. So, I hope very much that, on that ground
alone, we would turn down the amendment that the Senator from
Utah has offered.
Senator Grassley. I do not know exactly what the author of
the amendment will do. But I would hope that, with the
statement by the Chairman that he will mark up next week if
the House passes a bill, conversely, that this will give some
encouragement to the House of Representatives to move forward
and pass it because we have a commitment then that this is
not going to be bottled up in this committee. That does not
mean what is going to happen on the floor of the Senate, but
at least it will not be bottled up here by the Chairman. That
might encourage the House to move forward with it.
I yield.
Senator Hatch. If I could just ask, before I make this
momentous decision. I have listened to my colleagues.
The Chairman. Careful.
Senator Hatch. I am very considerate of my colleagues most
of the time, I think. But could I ask Mr. Spear to tell me
why Senator Bingaman is not right? I mean, I know why, but I
would like to hear it from you.
Mr. Spear. Well, Senator, there are some significant
differences.
Senator Hatch. You can be a little more diplomatic. You do
not have to refer to Senator Bingaman. [Laughter].
Mr. Spear. There are some significant differences in the
two proposals and I would be remiss if I did not say that the
administration is grateful to have had the opportunity to
work collaboratively with staff on both sides of the aisle
for several months now.
I think since May, when we first started discussing ways to
improve the program, we each had different solutions to that.
I think both proposals tried to get at the same goal, just in
different ways.
I think, in terms of secondary workers, COBRA care,
extended income support, these

[[Page S7823]]

are all significant things that are items that stand out in
the Chairman's mark that are not present in the
administration's proposal.
The administration worked very hard, based on three GAO
reports and a recent IG report in the Department of Labor to
improve its program. I do not recall any income
recommendations made in those reports that would justify
bolstering more money in the program to enhance the
performance.
I think what we tried to do is to increase performance, to
get results, stress training, which is mandatory under the
program, and make certain that people get placed as quickly
as possible. I think that is the goal of the program. I think
the administration's mark gets to that point.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Snowe?
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
I hope that we could sever these issues because I do think
it is extremely important to move ahead on the
reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance.
But, more than reauthorization, it is an expansion on the
program itself based on the need and tailored to some of the
issues that have been developed as a result of so many
displaced workers. The demands have been extraordinary on the
program, so obviously we need to do far more in providing
needs to displaced workers.
It does include health care provisions, although I do not
agree with the provisions that are in this legislation,
particularly. I did support the original provisions that were
included in Senator Bingaman's bill. Hopefully we will get
back to that, because I think 75 percent, based on this
legislation, is unprecedented.
But, in any event, I do think we need to go forward with
this legislation, and based on changes. I know I have worked
with the administration as well and they have been commenting
on a number of issues, and I have worked with the Chairman
and Senator Bingaman, who have been very responsive to some
of my issues as well.
I do think that we have to expand the program to include
secondary workers, as well as a program for farmers and
fishermen, increasing the amount of money available for
retraining. In my State of Maine, we have lost thousands
and thousands of manufacturing jobs. In just the last few
years, there have been more than 7,000 workers in my State
that have depended upon the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program.
So, it is not only necessary to move forward with this
program, but also to move forward in a way that reflects and
accommodates the additional issues that need to be addressed
through this reauthorization process that provides a far
better benefit to displaced workers, reflects the realities
of the workplace in making sure they have that kind of
support.
In addition, I do think it is critical to provide support
to communities. Obviously, when manufacturing plants or any
plants are closed down in a community in small towns like in
my State, clearly it has a reverberating effect throughout
the community.
So, we have to identify those firms that had a direct, and
in some cases indirect, relationship with the plant that
closed that really does present a hardship in the particular
community. I think we also have to provide additional support
for retraining, as has been recommended in the legislation
before us.
I would hope that we would separate these two issues. I am
not sure where I am on the trade promotion authority. That is
something that I am certainly going to reflect upon. I do
think that we should mark up that legislation and have a
date-certain commitment if the House of Representatives does
move forward in this legislation this week.
I do think that that is going to be important to address in
the final analysis, and I am prepared to work on that
legislation this month as well, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Senator Grassley, who I know is a strong supporter of
the trade promotion authority. Thank you.
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Hatch?
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, I would like a vote on this.
But I can see which way the vote is going to go and there is
no reason to put anybody through that.
Would the Chairman commit to a good-faith effort to, if the
House does not pass this or they do not act on this, to
bringing this up after the first of the year?
The Chairman. Senator, I think we all favor fast track. We
all want a fast track that is fair and responsible to
American people. I think that a vote today reporting out TAA
sends a very strong positive signal for expanding trade, and
I hope we pass that bill out today.
With respect to your specific question, in the event the
House does not pass fast track this session, then next year I
will, at the earliest possible time, look for a time when we
can take up in the committee and have a mark-up on fast
track. I cannot give a specific date because next year is
next year.
Senator Hatch. Sure.
The Chairman. It is just hard to tell what the timing is
next year. But I do think that it is appropriate for us to
try to take it up.
Now, on the other hand, if the House vote is very negative,
then it might make sense for us to wait a little longer, or
maybe speed it up. It is hard to tell.
Senator Hatch. Or we might have to lead on.
The Chairman. You just have my attention, that I will bring
up fast track as early as practical within a reasonable way,
because we all want to get fast track passed in a way that
makes sense.
Senator Hatch. All right. Well, I have listened to my
colleagues. It is apparent that it would be basically
defeated for a variety of reasons here today, so I will
withdraw the amendment and listen to my colleagues.
The Chairman. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference
Agreement on Trade Promotion Authority. Since 1994, when trade
promotion authority lapsed, America has been on the sidelines while
other countries have negotiated free trade agreements beneficial to
those countries and harmful to us. Our trading partners around the
world have sealed deals on approximately 150 preferential trade
compacts, many within our own hemisphere. Yet the United States is
party to only three.
Encouraging trade has been an undeniable benefit for Arkansas'
economy. Arkansas export sales of merchandise for the year 2000 totaled
$2.07 billion, up over 13 percent from 1999 and 86 percent higher than
the State's 1993 total of $1.11 billion. Arkansas exported globally to
134 foreign destinations in 2000. More than 69 percent of Arkansas's
1,456 companies that export are small- and medium-sized businesses, and
61,700 Arkansas jobs depend on manufactured exports. Wages for those
jobs are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average. For 8 years
the United States has missed out on opportunities to increase trade,
opportunities we frankly could not afford to miss. Today the Senate
will complete our debate on granting the President trade promotion
authority.
This critical legislation gives the President the authority to
negotiate and bring trade agreements to Congress that will eliminate
and reduce trade barriers relating to manufacturing, services,
agriculture, intellectual property, investment and e-commerce. Most
importantly, this legislation ensures that Congress can fulfill its
constitutional role in U.S. trade policy and fight for the interests of
U.S. workers as well as industry.
One area of the conference agreement that deserves special
recognition is the treatment of trade remedy laws. Our Nation's trade
laws are essential to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and workers. I am
strongly committed to preserving U.S. trade laws, as are many of my
colleagues. Many of us have written to the President, stating our
opposition to trade agreements that would weaken trade remedy laws. The
Senate commitment to preservation of the U.S. trade law is unequivocal.
The conference agreement speaks very clearly to this commitment. The
legislation before us upgrades, as a ``Principal Negotiating
Objective,'' the preservation of the ability of the United States to
vigorously enforce its trade remedy laws. This agreement officially
codifies our commitment to the preservation of these laws and to avoid
weakening measures. It also includes provisions directing the President
to address and remedy market distortions that lead to dumping and
subsidization.
Additionally, the conference agreement provides for close
consultation between the administration and Congress throughout ongoing
trade negotiations. It requires the President to report to Congress 180
days, before entering into a trade agreement, describing the trade law
proposals that may be included in that agreement and how these
proposals fulfill the principal negotiating objectives. After that
report has been submitted, Congress may consider a resolution under
special rules expressing disapproval of any trade law weakening
provisions that may be included in a trade agreement.
As the administration moves forward with trade negotiations, I urge
our negotiators to view the measures adopted today as a clear signal
that Congress will take seriously any attempts to weaken our domestic
trade laws in the context of these negotiations. The laws currently in
place, particularly the antidumping and countervailing duty laws,
ensure that free trade is also fair. These laws are of critical
importance to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and workers, and they must
be preserved. I plan to follow our multilateral trade negotiations very
closely with an eye toward assuring the integrity of these laws.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to indicate my support for the
Andean Trade Preference Act conference report

[[Page S7824]]

now before the Congress. As my colleagues know, this conference report
contains a number of trade provisions, including Trade Promotion
Authority.
As I have said throughout my service in the Senate, Washington State
is the most trade-dependent State in the country. Trade and our ability
to maintain and grow international markets for our goods and services
is tremendously important to my State. It is an economic issue, a
family-wage jobs issue for my constituents who are accustomed to
international competition. With these new trade tools, the President
can give Washington State exporters new and expanded opportunities
abroad. Expanded trade can play a role in job creation and economic
recovery for Washington State.
The conference report, like all legislation, is a compromise. And
while I would have liked to see even stronger provisions on trade
adjustment assistance and worker and environmental protection, the
conference report represents real progress on many issues I have worked
on and supported over the years.
More workers will be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Some
workers from secondary industries will be covered for the first time
under the conference report. The Senate bill provides a new health
benefit to displaced workers.
The Senate bill provided a stronger health benefit for displaced
workers. The conference report provides a 65-percent up-front,
refundable tax credit for COBRA coverage which is slightly less than
the 70-percent up-front credit provided by the Senate bill. This is a
significant benefit. Congress will have to monitor closely the degree
to which displaced workers are able to access the benefits. If
necessary, I will not hesitate to support further modification of this
program to allow displaced workers and their families to keep their
health insurance. This is an issue of ongoing interest to me.
Fast track or trade promotion authority has been debated extensively
now for 8 years. The President will soon have the authority that he and
his Democratic predecessor sought. As the administration looks forward
to difficult trade talks with Chile, Singapore, and others, I call upon
the President and USTR Zoellick to be true to the debate the Congress
has had on trade promotion. Many important issues have been raised. And
while not all are included in the final conference report, the issues
raised by the Congress will play a role in final approval of any trade
agreement negotiated with TPA.
I am concerned that this administration will not be inclusive in
upcoming trade negotiations. Members of Congress and outside groups
have a legitimate role to play in setting national trade priorities and
policy and I encourage the administration to be respectful of these
roles. I have had several discussions with Ambassador Zoellick and he
has demonstrated to me an awareness of important issues to my State.
The administration should not misinterpret today's TPA vote. It is not
a vote for a trade agreement. Congress will closely scrutinize the work
of this administration as it negotiates as well as any agreement
submitted for consideration under TPA's expedited procedures. I will be
a very interested observer as the President and his trade team move
forward.
The tremendous importance of international trade to my State, my
entire State is the strongest argument for my vote in support of trade
promotion authority.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues, my
constituents and the administration on important international trade
issues. Today's vote is an important step, a complicated step but
ultimately the right step for our country.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the
conference agreement on the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 2002 that
will grant the President authority to negotiate trade agreements and
send them to Congress for a straight up or down vote on an expedited
schedule. This Administration has not demonstrated that it will
preserve our existing trade laws when making international agreements.
That means American workers are very likely to be injured by new trade
deals, and I cannot in good conscience give up my rights to protect
them through the traditional legislative process. I will vote no on
this conference agreement.
I remind my colleagues that within the first few months of this
Administration, U.S. trade negotiators put our trade laws on the table
at the urging of foreign interests, as they sought to reach an
agreement for the agenda of the upcoming trade round in Doha, Qatar.
That happened even though 62 Senators had written the President and
told him that we did not want any weakening of our trade laws as part
of those negotiations. And it happened even though personal commitments
had been made to me, as a Member of the Senate Finance Committee, that
such actions would not be taken. The Administration knew very well that
a clear, strong bipartisan majority in the Senate believed we should
fully protect our trade laws, and they made them a bargaining chip
anyway.
Without the assurance that our existing unfair trade laws--including
our antidumping, countervailing duty laws, will be protected and
aggressively enforced in all instances, I cannot give new authority to
the President to negotiate treaties that could leave American workers
without needed remedies for unfair trade. West Virginia's hard
experience with illegal trade shows why we must maintain the minimal
protections provided by our existing trade laws.
As a member of the Senate/House conference committee that hammered
out this agreement, I know that Members of good faith worked hard to
produce a bill that balances trade promotion and assistance for workers
displaced by trade. In my judgment, the beneficial provisions that help
displaced workers in this package do not offset the damage that could
be done to American workers through the virtually inevitable weakening
of our trade laws.
During the Senate debate, I made it clear that I had tremendous
concern about 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 they serve the crucial
function of offsetting and deterring some harmful unfair trade
practices affecting international trade today.
I know the Chairman of the Finance Committee shares my concern that
we preserve these laws, but we have a disagreement over the effect that
granting fast track to the President will have on our ability to do so.
While I believe it would be a serious mistake for any Administration to
think that a trade agreement or package of agreements can be
successfully presented to Congress for any approval, fast-track or
otherwise, if it includes weakening changes to our trade remedy laws, I
fear that is exactly what this Administration has demonstrated, through
its own actions, that it intends to do.
This trade bill will make it considerably easier for the
Administration to change our trade laws in international negotiations
because it deletes the Dayton-Craig amendment that I, and 60 of my
Senate colleagues, voted in favor of adopting. The Dayton-Craig
amendment would have ensured that the Senate could separately consider
any changes to the trade laws. The final conference agreement,
regrettably, diminishes congressional leverage to protect the trade
laws. The conference agreement replaces Dayton-Craig with a process
whereby either House can pass a nonbinding resolution expressing
opposition to proposed changes to our fair trade laws. The
Administration could ignore this resolution with no penalty.
Arguably, the conference report changes might make it even more
difficult for Congress to withdraw fast track, because it would allow
only one of either the nonbinding resolution or the more meaningful
``procedural disapproval resolution'', withdrawing fast track, on any
trade agreement. Therefore, if a nonbinding resolution had already been
reported out of the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and
Means Committee, both houses would then lose the right to introduce
``procedural disapproval resolutions'' on the same. The procedural
disapproval resolution was a key element of how the original Senate
bill sought to protect U.S. trade laws, and losing the right to
introduce it will actually

[[Page S7825]]

limit Congress' ability to withdraw fast track.
As a conferee on this trade bill, I entered conference negotiations
understanding that many of the conferees believed we needed to make
adjustments to the Dayton-Craig language. Unfortunately, the final
agreement did not retain the basic underpinnings of Dayton-Craig--that
we include some mechanism to allow Congress to remove any efforts to
weaken our trade laws from trade agreements returned under fast track.
This is a grave failure of the conference. I believe we will come to
deeply regret the conference changes in this regard and that American
workers will suffer for it.
For my part, I will continue to strongly oppose any weakening changes
to our trade laws, whether in the WTO, as part of any deal brought back
under fast track negotiating authority, or in any other form. But the
final language of the conference agreement will make it harder for me
to protect U.S. trade law in the future, and that is a major reason I
will oppose this bill.
I am very proud that the final conference agreement retained much of
the Senate's good work on expanding and improving the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program. Under this bill, when workers lose their jobs due
to imports, they will now, for the first time ever, have some help
accessing health care coverage. That is a critical new benefit, and is
one of the provisions that was fundamental to moving this legislation
in the Senate. Health care coverage for displaced workers is an
essential transitional benefit that American workers deserve and that
is long overdue.

I believe the health credit provisions in the Senate bill were
superior to the provisions of the House bill and to the final
provisions of the conference report in many fundamental ways. The
Senate's TAA health provisions worked better than the conference report
to ensure that workers could access the health credit established by
the bill and could afford the health care coverage they need. The
Senate bill included necessary insurance market reforms to ensure that
the new TAA health credit would be available to the workers who needed
it, but the conference report unacceptably dilutes those protections.
Unfortunately, in the interest of reaching a quick agreement before the
House adjourned, the amount of the Senate's health subsidy was reduced
from 70 percent of benefit costs to 65 percent, making it that much
more difficult for unemployed workers to be able to afford the
coverage. I very much regret that conferees did not retain the senate's
worker provisions in whole.
However, I have to not that the final agreement includes one very
important addition to the Senate bill by providing health care coverage
to early retirees whose companies went bankrupt and who are receiving a
check from the Pension benefit Guarantee Corporation, (PBGC). It's only
a small portion of the retirees I had hoped would get some health care
coverage from this trade bill, but it will make a real difference in
the lives of tens of thousands of retirees. And I am extremely pleased
we have set a precedent that just because people are retired, their
lives are no less affected by trade.
The House had added a provision that helped PBGC beneficiaries access
its health credit, as it attempted to muster the necessary votes to
appoint House conferees. The last-minute House provision established a
new precedent to extend TAA benefits to retirees, but also included
unrealistic income limitations that would have effectively made the
credit impossible to access for most early retirees, including retired
steelworkers who very much need help with their health care coverage.
I am very pleased that the conference negotiations built on the House
provision and improved it substantially. The conference agreement will
give these workers, aged 55-65, access to a more affordable health
credit. The final PBGC provision has the complete market protections of
the final package, and these early retirees whose companies have shut
down can access this health coverage for the duration of the TAA
program as long as they meet the age criteria, are receiving a PBGC
check, and do not have access to other health care coverage. There will
be no unrealistically low income limitations on retiree eligibility for
this program. I know that at some point, some West Virginia retirees
will have to rely on this provision, and I am very glad that the final
agreement does not forget them.
My hope had been to extend the health credit to all steel retirees
who lose the health benefits they have earned when their companies go
bankrupt, and not only to early retirees under age 65. Senators
Mikulski and Wellstone introduced an amendment during the original
trade bill debate in the Senate that would have done this. Fifty-seven
Senators agreed that protecting steel retirees was the right thing to
do, but our amendment fell just short of the procedural requirement of
60 votes, so the Senate bill did not ultimately include this
protection. But the final conference agreement at least says we should
help a small group of early retirees, and I am very pleased that
provision will become law.
The Senate's TAA provisions on secondary workers and shift in
production were far superior to the House's, and the final conference
erodes some of the Senate's work, to the detriment of American workers
who will need the help of TAA. Those concessions are a disappointing
retrenchment from the Senate bill, and I am disappointed that we did
not prevail so that all workers substantially affected by trade could
access TAA benefits.
In conclusion, despite the hard work of my Chairman who worked
himself to exhaustion to complete this agreement under terrible time
constraints as well as the consistently excellent work of his dedicated
staff, this agreement does not retain the full benefits of the senate
bill, and American workers lose as a result. Fundamentally, I do not
believe the assurances and trust that would need to exist between the
Administration and Congress on preserving our trade laws and protecting
American interests is sufficient to warrant ceding Congress'
constitutional responsibility on trade.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report to accompany the trade Promotion Authority/Trade Adjustment
Assistance legislation. This landmark legislation is a careful
compromise that will benefit the American public by creating new jobs
and investment opportunities.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.
This legislation is not only good for the citizens of Utah, it is
good for all Americans and it is good for our trading partners,
especially those in the developing world.
In fact, almost 10% of all U.S. jobs--an estimated 12 million
workers--now depend on America's ability to export to the rest of the
world. Export-related jobs typically pay 13% to 18% more than the
average U.S. wage.
This legislation will help bring new jobs into Salt Lake City and
across our state. Last year, Utah's manufacturers produced and exported
$2.7 billion worth of manufactured items to more than 150 countries
around the world. An estimated 61,400 jobs in Utah are trade-related
and one in every six manufacturing jobs in Utah--approximately 20,300
jobs--are tied to exports. Trade is of great benefit to Utah's small
and medium sized companies. Some 80% of Utah's 1,894 companies that
export are small and medium sized businesses.
As the Ranking Republican member of the International Trade
Subcommittee of the Finance Committee, I make international trade a
high priority. International trade plays two important roles: it
strengthens the U.S. and world economy; and it is a powerful foreign
policy tool. Free trade and respect for freedom go hand in hand.
Mr. President, I believe that this measure is one of the most
important pieces of legislation we will face this year. Trade promotion
authority is vital to our national economy and security, benefiting
American businesses and employees everywhere. Simply stated, it means
more jobs, higher wages, and better products.
Passage of this legislation is a significant victory for the American
people, especially our entrepreneurs. It was President Bush's
leadership that propelled Congress to address this eight-year drought
in trade promotion authority. I remember well the meeting that the
President convened in the

[[Page S7826]]

Cabinet Room two weeks ago today to urge the trade bill conferees to
get our work done before the August recess. Today's vote must be seen
as a great vote of confidence in President Bush's leadership.
I commend conference committee Chairman Bill Thomas and Vice Chairman
Max Baucus for their leadership in expeditiously putting together this
bipartisan compromise. Senators Breaux and Rockefeller played key roles
as did Representatives Rangel, Crane, Dingell, Boehner, Johnson,
Miller, Tauzin, Bilrakis, Burton, Barr, Waxman, Sensenbrenner, Cobie,
Conyers, Dreier, Linder, and Hastings.
A full conference agreement on three major bills--TPA, TAA, and the
Andean Trade Pact completed in three days! That is exactly the way the
Congress can and should act on behalf of the American people if we put
partisan politics aside and roll up our sleeves and get to work. In
particular, Chairman Bill Thomas performed a legislative tour de force
last week. Everyone should know about his leadership and thank him for
the way he worked to resolve issues with Senator Baucus and the other
conferees.
I am particularly pleased that we are adopting this bill in August
rather than October or December. This will give the Administration's
trade team led by Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, United States Trade
Representative Bob Zoellick, Undersecretary of Commerce Grant Aldonis,
and Deputy USTR Jon Huntsman--a Utahn I might add--an immediate
opportunity to negotiate trade pacts that will bring new jobs home to
America and help increases the demand for American goods abroad.
Not only will passage of this legislation expand the Administration's
ability to negotiate, and for Congress to review, trade agreements, the
trade adjustment assistance provisions will provide re-training and
health care benefits to those workers who lose their jobs due to
foreign trade. We in Utah, home of Geneva steel--where 1,600 workers
and their families are struggling due to the fact that unfair dumping
of foreign steel has caused the plant to cease production--known full
well that, while most will gain through trade, inevitably some will
lose out and need transitional assistance. This bill provides $12
billion of such assistance over 10 years.
This legislation will also reauthorize the Andean Trade Pact that
expired last December. From my work on the Judiciary Committee, I can
tell you that this is a vital trade pact as we help wean these nations
away from economic dependence on the illicit drug trade. I want to
associate myself with the remarks of Senator McCain on the importance
of passing the expired Andean Trade Pact before some South American
economies topple.
This is a good bill. It is legislation that will have both short-term
and long-term benefits. A strong vote for this bill will indicate to
our trading partners that the United States intends to play the
leadership role during the Doha Round of international trade talks.
This bill will boost our economy which is still struggling to regain
its footing. As we face a new type of war, the war against terrorism,
it is important that we strengthen our relationship with our trading
partners throughout the world. From mutual economic interests that come
through trade, political alliances can form. This dynamic can only help
us hunt down and deny safe harbor for any terrorists. At the least, our
neighbors throughout the world will get to know Americans and our
values and ideals. This will only increase our stature in the world.
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this
bipartisan conference report on trade. Let's get the job done for the
American public and pass this bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take this time to talk in some
detail about the Trade Adjustment Assistance provisions in the
conference report.
I am proud of the entire conference agreement--but I am particularly
proud of the TAA provisions. For the first time since 1974, we are
partnering a grant of Presidential authority to negotiate agreements
that expand trade with a serious commitment to deal with the downside
of trade expansion.
We all know that trade greatly benefits our economy as a whole. But
we also know that a Government decision to pursue trade liberalization
can have adverse consequences for some. As President Kennedy recognized
in 1962, we, as a government, have an obligation ``to render assistance
to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.''
The trade adjustment assistance program has been around for 40 years.
During that time, it has quietly helped thousands of trade-impacted
workers to retrain and make a new start. But the program has also been
criticized for being too complicated, underfunded, and available to too
few workers.
This conference report will go a long way toward solving these
problems and making TAA work better for working Americans. Does it have
everything in it that I could have wished? To be honest, no. That is
the nature of compromise. But overall, I think we have done very well
indeed. So let me know run through some of the most important
provisions in the conference report.
First, the conference report expands the number of workers eligible
for TAA benefits in several ways. Like the Senate bill, the conference
report covers secondary workers where the loss of business with the
primary firm ``contributed importantly'' to job losses at the secondary
plant. In addition, where a secondary plant supplies 20 percent of more
of its sales or production to the primary plant, coverage is presumed.
The conference report also provides TAA coverage to downstream workers
who are impacted by trade with Mexico or Canada.
The conference report also expands coverage to workers affected by
shifts in production. Workers are automatically covered if their plant
moves to a country with which the United States has a free trade
agreement, or to a country that is part of a preferential trade
arrangement such as ATPA, CBI, or AGOA.
For workers whose plant moves to any other country, TAA benefits are
available if the Secretary of Labor determines that imports have
increased or are likely to increase.
While the Senate bill did not require a showing of increased imports,
there are virtually no instances in which relocating production abroad
would not be accompanies by, or lead to, an increase in imports of the
product. Only workers at a company that produced 100 percent for
export, with no domestic sales, would be excluded. And it is
particularly important to note that the workers do not have to prove
that the increase in imports will come from the country to which
production relocated.
In addition, the conference report includes a new TAA program for
farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and other agricultural producers. Past
attempts to shoehorn farmers into eligibility requirements intended for
manufacturing workers have left most with no access to TAA. By focusing
eligibility requirements on the relationship between imports and
commodity prices, the conferences bill creates a program better suited
to the unique situation of trade-impacted agricultural producers.
The Senate bill actually included two separate programs--one
specifically for independent fishermen and one for farmers, ranchers,
and other agricultural producers. The conference report eliminates the
separate program with dedicated funds for fishermen. But that does not
mean fishermen are excluded from TAA. As agricultural producers, they
are still able to participate in the general TAA for farmers program.
Taken together, these expansions in eligibility are likely to result
in tens of thousands of additional workers receiving TAA benefits every
year. Moreover, the benefits that they receive will be better than ever
before in several ways.
Most importantly, the TAA provisions include health care coverage for
displaced workers for the first time in the program's history. Workers
eligible for TAA will receive a 65 percent advanceable, refundable tax
credit that can be used to pay for COBRA coverage, or a variety of
state-based group coverage options.
The credit could not be used for the purchase of individual health
insurance unless the worker had a private, non-group policy prior to
becoming eligible for TAA. The health care credit is available to
workers for as long as they are participating in the TAA program.

[[Page S7827]]

The conference report also improves coverage by extending income
support from 52 to 78 weeks for workers completing training. It adds a
further 26 weeks of training and income supports for workers who must
begin with remedial education such as English as a second language. To
pay for this additional training, the annual training budget is doubled
from $110 million to $220 million.
For older workers, the conference report offers wage insurance as an
alternative to traditional TAA. Workers who qualify and who take lower-
paying jobs can receive a wage subsidy of up to 50 percent of the
difference between the old and new salary--up to $10,000 over two
years. The goal is to encourage on-the-job training and faster re-
employment of older workers who generally find it difficult to change
careers.
The Senate bill included a two-year wage insurance pilot program. The
conference report improves on the Senate bill in two ways--by making
the program permanent, and by providing TAA health benefits to workers
under the program if the new employer does not provide health
insurance.
There are other enhancements to benefits as well. Job search and
relocation allowances are increased. The authorization level for the
TAA for firms program is increased from $10 million to $16 million
annually. And the Conference Report improves on the Senate bill by
providing TAA health care benefits for up to 2 years to workers
receiving pension benefits from the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation.
Finally, in addition to expanding benefits and eligibility, the
conference report makes a number of improvements that streamline the
program. Like the Senate bill, the conference report consolidates the
existing TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs. This eliminates bureaucracy and
confusion and saves workers the trouble of applying to two separate
programs.
The conference report also shortens the time in which the Secretary
of Labor must consider petitions, extends permissible breaks in
training so workers don't lose income assistance during semester
breaks, and provides common-sense training waivers for all workers.
Taken together, these are extraordinary improvements in the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program. They will make the program fairer, more
efficient, and more user friendly. Over the past year and longer, I
have worked hard--with the help of many colleagues on both sides of the
aisle--to raise the profile of TAA. All along, my message has been that
if we want to rebuild the center on trade, improving Trade Adjustment
Assistance is the right thing to do.
I am proud of how far we have come toward that goal. I am proud of
this conference report. I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report and send this historic legislation to the President this week.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a historic day. I am very proud
of what we have accomplished. The Trade Act of 2002 will soon be sent
to the President's desk for his signature, and America will once again
take a leadership role in promoting international trade in the world
economy.
Let me briefly highlight the important provisions in this bill. First
and most momentous, we restored the President's ability to negotiate
strong trade deals, and send them back to Congress for an up or down
vote. This authority has been absent for far too long, and I see this
as one of the greatest successes of this Congress.
Second, we renewed and expanded preferences for our important allies
in the Andean region, which will help to eradicate the drug trade that
threatens their stability, and our health and safety.
Next, we reauthorized both the Generalized System of Preferences,
which expired last year, and the Customs Service. And last of all, we
renewed and expanded the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for
workers who become displaced by trade.
Thank you to my colleagues who helped make this happen. I would like
to commend my colleague and friend, Senator Baucus for his leadership
and keeping his word that we would get this done. Thank you also to
Senator Hatch who has been an instrumental ally in the Conference
Committee as well as on the Finance Committee, and thank you to Senator
Hatch's staff members Bruce Artim and Chris Campbell for their hard
work. Senator Phil Gramm was also a great help in getting us to this
point, along with Amy Dunathan from his trade staff. They were key in
helping to negotiate a deal when this legislation was first brought to
the Senate floor.
Next, I would like to thank my staff, who have been dedicated and
focused on passing TPA for the past couple of years. This is a great
success, and I am happy to share it with them. I would like to thank
the Staff Director of my Finance Committee staff, Kolan Davis, Chief
Trade Counsel Everett Eissenstat, and Trade Counsel Richard Chriss.
This would not have happened if it were not for their incredible work
ethic and knowledge, along with the hard work and support of trade
staff members Carrie Clark and Tiffany McCullen Atwell.
My Finance Committee health and pension staff also played an
important role in this process. Thank you to Ted Totman, Colin Roskey
and Diann Howland for helping us navigate through the complex health
and pension issues in the Trade Adjustment Assistance section of the
bill.
Senator Baucus had a good staff helping him as well. And I would like
to thank them for their hard work and long nights that went into making
this happen. Senator Baucus' staff was led by John Angell and Mike
Evans, and his trade staff was led by Greg Mastel, along with Angela
Marshall Hofmann, Tim Punke, Ted Posner, Shara Aranoff and Andy Harig.
A sincere thank you also must be given to Polly Craighill from the
office of the Senate Legislative Counsel, for her patience and
expertise in drafting this legislation.
We can all be proud of this accomplishment, and I look forward to the
President signing it into law.
Mr. BACUS. Mr. President, as we discuss the Andean Trade Preferences
Act, it is important to note that for an Andean nation to qualify for
trade benefits it must fulfill seven mandatory criteria. I want to
focus on one of those criteria in particular. I am referring to the
requirement that a country act in good faith in recognizing as binding
and in enforcing arbitration awards in favor of United States citizens
and companies. 19 U.S.C. 3202(c)(3). I focus on this requirement,
because it has come to my attention that a number of ATPA countries may
have failed to honor arbitration awards in favor of U.S. companies.
To attract foreign investment, ATPA beneficiary countries need to
create a hospitable investment climate. Honoring arbitration awards is
a fundamental component of this climate.
This matter is sufficiently important that the Finance Committee drew
special attention to it in its report on the Andean Trade Preference
Expansion Act Report Number 107-126. In that report, the Committee
identified several specific cases in which we understand that Andean
countries had failed to honor arbitration awards in favor of U.S.
companies. Some of these cases have remained unresolved for far too
long. I urge those countries seeking to qualify for enhanced benefits
to resolve these situations promptly.
I urge my colleagues to join me in emphasizing the importance of ATPA
beneficiary countries' honoring arbitration awards in favor of United
States citizens and companies. I urge the President and the U.S. Trade
Representative to examine this matter very closely in determining
whether to give enhanced benefits to the ATPA countries.
I also want to address briefly a provision in the conference report
concerning negotiations left over from the Uruguay Round of world trade
negotiations. Specifically, section 2102(b)(13) of the conference
report concerns certain ``WTO extended negotiations.'' One of these is
negotiation on trade in civil aircraft. The conference report
incorporates by reference the objectives set forth in section 135(c) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 19 U.S.C. 3355(c). When the URAA was
enacted, the objective set forth at section 135(c) was elaborated on in
the accompanying statement of administrative action. It is my
understanding that in incorporating by reference section 135(c) of the
URAA, Congress also is re-affirming the corresponding provisions from
the statement of administrative action. This understanding is
consistent

[[Page S7828]]

with the explanation in the Finance Committee's report on H.R. 3005
Report Number 107-139.
Mr. BAUCUS. I further want to address an aspect of the Andean Trade
Preference Act, which forms part of the Trade Act of 2002. The Andean
Trade Preference Act grants duty-free access to certain tuna products
from the Andean countries. Let me first say that I support the
objective of the Andean Trade Preference Act to encourage the Andean
countries in promoting economic development and fighting the drug
trade. I am concerned, however, that some tuna imported into the United
States under this preference program may not be legally harvested.
A case was recently reported in the news in which the El Dorado, a
Colombian-flagged vessel working for the Ecuadorian company Inepaca,
one of the largest fish processing facilities in Latin America, was
caught fishing illegally in Ecuador's Galapagos Marine Reserve.
Industrial fishing in the reserve is prohibited under Ecuadorian law.
The Galapagos Marine Reserve is a globally significant area that was
recognized earlier this year as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
In addition, the report stated that the vessel was illegally fishing
for tuna using a method known as dolphin encirclement. This technique
is permitted under international law only if its carried out in
compliance with dolphin protection requirements imposed through the
Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program and other
associated legal requirements. The El Dorado reportedly was not
authorized to fish using this method. As a result, dolphins were
trapped in the net, and over 60 dolphins were either killed or injured.
It concerns me that some of the tuna that will be coming into the
United States duty free under the Andean Trade Preference Act may be
caught in the same way--illegally, and without respect for dolphins and
other marine life.
I raised this issue during the conference on the trade bill. I am
concerned about our environmental and trade policies being mutually
supportive. As my colleagues know, the conference report also sets out
the overall trade negotiating objectives of the United States. Those
objectives include ensuring that trade and environmental policies are
mutually supportive, and seeking to protect and preserve the
environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while
optimizing the use of the world's resources. Moreover, the conference
report makes it a principal negotiating objective to ensure that a
party to a trade agreement with the United States does not fail to
effectively enforce its environmental laws in a manner affecting trade.
I would like to emphasize that, according to reports, the El Dorado
incident was not a case where the government simply didn't know about
the violation. This was a case of truly ineffective enforcement. As I
understand it, the Galapagos National Park Authorities actually
captured the El Dorado and took videotape of the incident. The Captain
of the Port, an official of the Ecuadorian navy, fined the El Dorado's
captain four cents. I think we can all agree that a fine of 4 cents
does not even amount to a slap on the wrist. We are waiting to see if
the Ecuadorian Government will take additional steps to further
prosecute this case.
I also believe that the El Dorado incident is not an isolated case. I
understand that when the Galapagos National Park authorities found the
El Dorado, they were in search of another vessel that had been fishing
illegally in the Galapagos Marine Reserve.
The Andean Trade Preference Act requires the U.S. Trade
Representative to report to Congress biannually on beneficiary
countries' compliance with the eligibility criteria under the Act. As
chairman of the Finance Committee, I will be asking the U.S. Trade
Representative to include in its biannual reports a discussion of the
extent to which beneficiary countries are enforcing their environmental
laws, including the prohibition on industrial fishing in the Galapagos
Marine Reserve, and complying with their international obligations
under the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
I also note that under section 2102(c)(4) of the conference report,
the President is required to conduct environmental reviews of future
trade and investment agreements and to report to the Finance Committee
and the House Committee on Ways and Means. It is my expectation that
these reviews will take into account the extent to which trade
agreement partners are effectively enforcing their environmental laws.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President: for too long, Congress has been deeply
divided between those who argued that free trade has no downside, and
others who said it is a complete disaster.
As a result, we did not give the President the authority to
aggressively pursue new markets for American goods and services, nor
did we do enough to help the workers who were being hurt by trade.
Today we stand on the verge of recognizing in law a basic truth: our
economy as a whole benefits enormously from expanded global trade. But
some workers, due to no fault of their own, are hurt by it.
We could not have reached this point without the leadership shown by
Chairman Baucus. Simply put, Senator Baucus engineered an agreement
that few thought was possible. I have no doubt our nation will be
stronger because of it.
I want to thank Senator Grassley, the Ranking member, and Senator
Hatch on the Republican side for their work in crafting a bipartisan
bill.
I want to thank Senator Breaux, who worked so effectively to help us
achieve the initial compromise that got us into the conference . . .
and then helping find the compromise that got us out . . . with this
agreement.
And, finally, I want to say a special word of thanks to Senator
rockefeller for his work in the conference. He was an incredibly strong
and passionate advocate for the health care provisions and the entire
worker package. He did the workers of West Virginia, and this country,
proud.
I stand in strong support for this trade legislation for three
fundamental reasons:
First, in this time of economic uncertainty, it sends a strong
message to the American people and to the markets of the world that
nothing is going to stop us from seizing the opportunities of the
global economy.
Second, it makes sure that while we advance trade, we do not trade
away the values on which prosperity is built: that every American
should have the opportunity to succeed.
Third, this bill sends a strong message to the nations of the world,
friends and enemies alike--that the United States of America will not
shrink from our responsibilities as a global economic leader.
These are uncertain economic times.
Americans have seen their confidence in corporate governance shaken.
The resulting decline in the stock market has hurt pensions and
savings. Families are wondering how they're going to afford a child's
college tuition, or their own retirement.
This fear plays itself out against the backdrop of an economy
struggling to re-emerge from recession, and a government that has seen
one of the most dramatic fiscal reversals in history.
The historic accounting reform bill we passed unanimously last week--
and that the President signed on Tuesday, will help restore integrity
to our capital markets.
This trade bill is another important step in restoring strength to
our economy.
No nation is better suited or better prepared to benefit from global
trade. We have the best-educated workers and most productive workforce
in the world, the most mature economy, the most developed
infrastructure. We are in a position to seize the high-skill, high-wage
jobs generated by open global markets, so long as we don't turn our
backs on them.
Just as we can't turn our backs on trade, we can't turn our backs on
the hard-working American families who have had their lives ruined by
the impersonal forces of trade.
It can be devastating to a family when a parent loses his or her job
because a factory closes down or moves away. That devastation can turn
to real fear if losing that job means losing health insurance.
The reality is that the jobs we gain from trade do nothing to
compensate the men and women who have lost their jobs because of trade.

[[Page S7829]]

That's why, for the first time, this legislation provides a 65
percent tax credit to help trade dislocated people keep their health
coverage. This represents a significant step in providing families with
a greater sense of security.
This bill also makes a number of additional improvements over our
current system:
Under our current TAA program, benefits are available only to those
industries that are ``directly'' affected by trade.
For example, workers at an automobile plant that closes down due to a
flood of imported cars will qualify for help. But workers at a parts
supplier that's right across the street, and that closes as an
inevitable consequence of the auto plant's shut-down, are out of luck.
Now, for the first time, ``secondary'' workers and farmers will be
eligible for training and other kinds of assistance.
This bill also includes ``wage insurance,'' a time-limited stipend
that replaces some of a dislocated worker's lost income if he or she
takes a lower paying job.
Instead of an unemployment check, these workers would receive a
subsidy when they take a lower paying job. This new approach will
encourage this group to get back into the workforce and help them try
to sustain their standard of living as they approach retirement.
Last year, we passed an important education reform bill. We agreed
then that we would ``leave no child behind.'' Now we need to make sure
we leave no worker behind.
By strengthening the safety net for those who are hurt by trade, our
Trade Adjustment Assistance proposal will help us remedy America's
other trade deficit, the deficit of support for the workers here in
America who have been hurt by trade.
Finally, passage of this bill will reassert American leadership in
the world. We are the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful country in
the world. It is in our interest and it is our responsibility to
demonstrate global economic leadership, especially in these troubled
times.
At a time, when many around the world are doubting our commitment to
multilateral action, this legislation says that the United States will
be a leader in the effort to establish stronger global trade ties.
Expanding trade is not solely about economic leadership, it also
offers national security and foreign policy benefits. When it is done
correctly, trade opens more than new markets; it opens the way for
democratic reforms. It also increases understanding and interdependence
among nations, raises the cost of conflict, and alleviates the global
disparities in income and opportunity that terrorists seek to exploit
in order to advance their own deadly aims.
For example, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA was designed as
an effort to reduce barriers to trade between the United States and
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It was first passed in 1991 as
part of a comprehensive effort to defeat narco-trafficking and reduce
the flow of cocaine into the United States.
The program has already established a record of success.
According to the International Trade Commission, between 1991 and
1999, tow-way trade between the U.S. and Andean nations nearly doubled,
and U.S. exports to the region grew by 65 percent.
The ITC also reports that ATPA has contributed significantly to the
diversification of the region's exports, which means that farmers in a
region that produces 100 percent of the cocaine consumed in the U.S.
now have viable economic alternatives to the production of cocoa.
That's the positive power trade can have, and that is why, as part of
this bill, we renew and improve the Andean Trade Preferences Act.
The word ``trade'' has its roots in an old Middle English word
meaning ``path,'' which is connected to the word ``tread'', to move
forward.
This trade package will enable us to move forward in this new global
economy in a way that strengthens our national security, and the
economic security of American businesses and families on both sides of
the trade issue.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is free trade, no trade, and fair
trade. I am for fair trade. And I am also for respecting the role of
Congress in designing public policy. The Trade Promotion Authority
package we are voting on today will not result in fair trade and it
cedes too much power to the President.
I do not believe in giving a President carte blanche to write trade
legislation. I do not want to grant him the right to negotiate away
protection for American workers and the environment.
Imagine if the President could have proposed a corporate
accountability bill and the Congress would have had only an up or down
vote. Would we have passed legislation as strong as the legislation the
President signed? We are about to debate pension reform legislation.
Should we ask the President to make a proposal and then vote up or down
on that proposal? Clearly not. It is our responsibility to work with
the Executive branch of government to design policies that respect our
constituents.
The Trade Promotion Authority legislation fails American workers and
fails to address the need for smart environmental protections. In
short, TPA could result in trade agreements that are free from
environmental and are in no way fair. And it would preclude us from
amending future trade agreements to make them fair.
Let me be more specific.
This bill will allow a company to sue a developing nation if that
country improves its environmental standards and that improvement
results in some monetary loss for the foreign investor. That would
discourage developing nations from improving their environmental
standards out of fear of being sued. That is not fair trade, it is only
trade that benefits the powerful.
This bill will push down the wages and protections of our workers by
forcing them to compete with workers who go unprotected abroad. It
fails to provide U.S. trade negotiators with clear instructions that
the U.S. not engage in new trade agreements with countries who are
unwilling to provide their workers with the following core labor
standards--freedom of association and the right to bargain
collectively, the elimination of forced labor, the abolition of child
labor, and the elimination of discrimination in employment. Without a
commitment to these standards, and this TPA has made no commitment to
these standards, we will not have fair trade.
Most disturbing, the conference committee dropped the Senate-passed
Dayton-Craig language on protecting U.S. trade laws. As a result, there
will be no reliable mechanism to keep our domestic trade laws from
being weakened or eliminated in upcoming trade negotiations. This
provision passed the Senate by a wide margin and the conference
committee's rejection of it is disappointing.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) package for workers who lose
work because of changing trade patterns is also inadequate. In
particular, service workers were left out the TAA. And I was blocked
from amending the bill to make truckers who will lost their job as a
result of trade eligible for TAA.
We should have done better. This TPA bill cedes too much authority to
the President and the trade agreements that will result from it will
not be fair to workers and the environment.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the trade law
provisions in the conference report.
But before I begin, I first want to thank the senior Senator from
Idaho, who spoke earlier today on this issue. He and I have worked very
hard together over the years to defend our fair trade laws. I think
every industry that faces unfair foreign trade practices owes a great
deal of gratitude to Senator Craig for standing up for fair trade.
I want to thank both Senator Craig and Senator Dayton for their
tireless efforts during the Senate debate on the trade bill.
Although the Dayton-Craig amendment was modified during the
conference process, I can say without hesitation that this fast track
bill contains stronger protections for U.S. trade laws than any fast
track bill we have ever had. And we have those strong protections in
large part because of Senator Craig and Senator Dayton.
Now, there have been a lot of questions about the trade law
provisions

[[Page S7830]]

contained in this legislation, so I want to take a minute to spell them
out in some detail.
The conference bill protects U.S. trade laws in two ways. First, it
seeks to ensure that U.S. negotiators do not sign agreements that
weaken our laws.
Second, it seeks to ensure that our trade remedy laws are not further
weakened by WTO dispute panels--and it seeks to remedy some recent
decisions that have undermined these laws.
Importantly, the legislation makes protecting our U.S. trade remedy
laws a principal negotiating objective. The bill instructs trade
negotiators to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce
rigorously its trade laws, and it provides that the U.S. should not
enter into agreements that weaken those laws.
I will be inserting for the record what is considered to be a
weakening of the trade laws. I fully anticipate that the administration
will take these concerns seriously.
In addition, the bill also contains a principal negotiating objective
instructing trade negotiators to address and remedy market distortions
that lead to dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity,
cartelization, and market-access barriers.
This bill also ensures that Congress is a full partner when it comes
to the issue of U.S. trade laws. The conference bill requires the
President to notify Congress of proposed changes to U.S. trade laws 6
months in advance of completing an agreement.
This will give Congress a chance to comment on proposed changes
before an agreement is final--while there is still an opportunity to
fix the agreement.
The President's report will trigger a process allowing a resolution
on whether the proposed trade law changes are consistent with
negotiating objectives.
After the President submits the report, any Member of either House
may introduce a resolution stating that the proposed changes to U.S.
trade laws are inconsistent with the negotiating objective that
requires no weakening changes.
That resolution is referred to the House Ways & Means Committee or
the Senate Finance Committee. If the committee reports the resolution,
it will receive privileged consideration on the floor.
I fully expect to bring such a resolution, if introduced, to the
Finance Committee for consideration. I will not bottle up a meritorious
resolution in the Committee.
While committees may only report out only one resolution per
agreement--either a resolution regarding U.S. trade laws or a so-called
reverse fast track resolution--I would note here that fast track
procedures area considered to be rules of the House and Senate.
The Constitution is quite clear that either body may change those
rules at any time. And if Congress's concerns regarding trade laws are
not heard, I expect Congress would quickly derail an agreement.
Second, this bill seeks to improve dispute settlement in the World
Trade Organization. Our trading partners are now engaged in a
systematic attempt to weaken our trade laws through harassing WTO
litigation. They are seeking to achieve through dispute resolution what
they could not achieve in negotiations.
The conference bill seeks to address this problem in several ways.
Like the Senate bill, the conference bill includes an overall
negotiating objective instructing trade negotiators to strengthen
international dispute settlement.
In addition, the conference bill contains a principal negotiating
objective instructing negotiators to seek adherence by dispute
settlement panels to the relevant standard of review applicable under
the WTO, including greater deference to the fact-finding and technical
expertise of national investigating authorities.
That means that these panels should not be inappropriately second-
guessing the U.S. International Trade Commission or the Department of
Commerce.
In addition, the conference bill includes a finding expressing
Congress's concerns about these recent bad decisions. In particular,
the finding notes Congress's concern that dispute settlement panels
appropriately apply the WTO standard of review.
Under the conference bill, the Secretary of Commerce must provide a
report by the end of this year setting forth the administration's
strategy for addressing these concerns. Fast track procedures will not
apply to legislation implementing a WTO agreement if the Secretary does
not provide the report in a timely manner.
I plan to submit for the record a list of WTO cases that raise
particular concerns.
In closing, let met simply say this: The Senate has made its views on
trade laws very clear. Last year, 62 of my colleagues joined me in
sending a letter noting that the Senate would not tolerate agreements
that weakened our trade laws.
And during the Senate debate, 61 Senators re-emphasized their support
for trade laws by passing the Dayton-Craig amendment.
There can now be no doubt about the Senate's resolve on this issue.
Agreements that weaken our trade laws--in any way--simply will not
pass. And the procedures in this fast track legislation should
underscore that point.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I opposed the Senate fast track bill even
though it was an improvement over the House fast track bill.
Unfortunately, the conference report we are considering today has
gutted many of the improvements made in the Senate. I felt the Senate
bill did not go far enough. The fast track conference report we are
being asked to vote on today is a significant step backwards from what
the Senate passed.
I did not support the Senate version of this bill because it would
not allow Congress to amend a trade agreement, even to improve it to
make sure it was in the best interests of U.S. workers, industry, or
agriculture. It also did not go far enough to encourage the adoption of
internationally accepted labor standards or protect the environment. It
did not ensure that U.S. products would have fair access to foreign
markets in exchange for granting access to our markets. I cannot
support a bill that is significantly weaker than the Senate bill.
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 or down vote, without the ability to offer
amendments. I believe in free trade. I supported the Jordan Free Trade
Agreement, the Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, and granting China
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, 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 one of the most effective tools in
forcing fairer trade practices.
This fast track bill is significantly flawed because it does not
ensure that future trade agreements will protect human rights and labor
and environmental standards. Nor does it require that fair trade
practices are included in future trade agreements.
I am disappointed that conferees dropped my amendment that would make
it a principal negotiating objective of the United States to reduce
barriers in other countries to U.S. autos and auto parts, especially in
Japan and Korea where American autos and auto parts have been all but
shut out for decades. Surely, one of our chief objectives should be
increasing our products' access to markets which are closed or
partially closed to us.
Other countries have full access to our market for their autos and
auto parts. We should insist that foreign markets are equally open to
our autos and auto parts. The conference report makes it a principal
negotiating objective to expand trade and reduce barriers for trade in
services, foreign investment, intellectual property, electronic
commerce, agriculture, and other sectors. Yet the biggest portion of
our trade deficit is in autos. In 2001, our automotive deficit made up
over 31 percent of our total trade deficit with the world. In 2001, our
automotive deficit was 59 percent of our total trade deficit with Japan
and 53 percent of our total deficit with Korea. I don't believe that
the Senate should approve an omnibus trade bill without addressing
barriers to our products which are the largest contributors to our
trade deficit. Unfortunately, this flawed bill does not meet this
criterion.
Unfortunately, America's trade policy over the past 30 years has been
a

[[Page S7831]]

one way street. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world,
yet we have failed to pry foreign markets 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 that future
trade agreements better promote free and fair trade, Congress must not
give up its ability to amend the legislation implementing those
agreements.
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.
Unfortunately, without the ability of Congress to amend and improve
trade agreements we will not always get the best deal for American
products, if past history is any guide.
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 extended for 25 more years the Mexican law against selling used
American 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 principal 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.
Moreover, between January 1994, and early May 2002, the Department of
Labor certified that over 400,000 workers lost their jobs as a result
of increased imports from or plant relocations to Mexico or Canada.
These job losses occurred all over the county and in and around
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. One hundred and twenty-nice employees of Alcoa
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. Three hundred
employees of Eagle Ottawa Leather in Grand Haven who made leather for
automobile interiors saw their jobs moved to Mexico. The list of NAFTA-
TAA certified job losses goes on and on. These job losses didn't result
from a level ``playing field''. These job losses resulted from a
``playing field'' tilted against us.
We've 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 an oxymoron. NAFTA protected
Mexican industries and it gave special treatment to certain U.S.
industries. For example, leather products and footwear got the longest
U.S. tariff phase out, 15 years, and NAFTA included safeguard
provisions against import surges in these sectors. Agricultural
commodities and 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's clear that those who were represented at the
negotiating table were 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 specialty agriculture commodities.
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 ensure that 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 for it.
This is particularly unfortunate given that Congress 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; it broke new ground in its treatment of labor and
environmental standards in trade agreements. For the first time, a
trade agreement required that the parties to the agreement reflect the
core internationally recognized labor rights in their own domestic
labor laws.
The conference report 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't 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. Our workers
shouldn't also have to compete against countries that gain an unfair
comparative advantage because they pollute their air and water and
won't allow their workers to exercise fundamental rights.
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. We should not
force American workers to compete against countries with no such
standards or protection for its workers.
The Senate tried to improve this fast track legislation to address
some of the concerns I've outlined. I supported many of these efforts.
Unfortunately, many of the strengthening provisions added in the Senate
were dropped in conference. The Dayton-Craig provision was dropped.
This amendment would have allowed the Senate to have a separate vote on
any provision of a trade agreement that would change or weaken U.S.
trade remedy laws. Instead, the conference report moves rhetoric from
another section of the bill regarding Congressional intent not to
weaken U.S. trade remedy laws to the principal negotiating section.
This is a much weaker provision than allowing the Senate an up-or-down
vote on whether to weaken our trade laws or not.
This conference report fails to address these concerns. The weak fast
track bill we are voting on today is all the more reason Congress
should not give up its role under the Constitution. We should keep all
the tools available to fight for free and fair trade, including the
Congressional right to amend and improve a trade agreement. To do less
than that is not doing justice to our nations workers, manufacturers,
farmers or small business.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Trade bill
that is being considered on the Senate floor. I will keep my comments
short, as I know others wish to speak on the issue.
I want to begin by emphasizing the positive. We have come a long way
to where we are today on trade adjustment assistance. The provisions in
the conference report are far better than what exists in current law. I
want to thank all my colleagues for their support on trade adjustment
assistance,

[[Page S7832]]

and I want to thank the Administration for finding a path to compromise
on this very important legislation.
But I also want to take this opportunity to say that this conference
report does not go nearly far enough in terms of what needs to be done.
In fact, on trade adjustment assistance, I would have to say that the
end result in many respects misses the point of what my original bill
tried to do.
In short, there were four goals to the original bill:
First, we wanted to combine existing trade adjustment assistance
programs and harmonize their various requirements so they would provide
more effective and efficient results for individuals and communities;
second, we wanted to recognize that trade frequently has regional
impacts and create a program to help communities; third, we wanted to
encourage greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local
agencies that deal with individuals receiving trade adjustment
assistance; and fourth, we wanted to establish accountability,
reliability, speed, and consistency in the trade adjustment assistance
program.
Each of these goals was created with the view that the system needed
to be fair, equitable, accessible, and implemented similarly no matter
where you lived in the country. From my perspective, the bill that we
have before us does not do this.
Briefly, not all secondary workers, shifts in production, and
contract workers are covered under this bill. There are no TAA for
community provisions in this bill. The language that allowed the Senate
Finance Committee to request the Department of Labor to initiate a
certification is not in this bill. The language that compelled the
Department of Labor to monitor the implementation of the program across
states is not in this bill. The language that required the Department
of Labor to submit an annual report to Congress is not in this bill.
The language that encouraged greater cooperation between Federal,
regional, and local agencies on Trade Adjustment Assistance is not in
this bill. And the language that established accountability,
reliability, and consistency in the trade adjustment assistance program
is not in this bill.
I could go on, but this should give you an idea of the key components
related to administration and implementation of trade adjustment
assistance that were deleted in conference. I have no idea why this
occurred, as it seems to me these provisions would be acceptable to
Members on both sides of the aisle. But I want to emphasize here and
now that these are not minor problems, as they are in fact the essence
of whether trade adjustment assistance works well, or just works.
The fact of the matter is we have created a trade adjustment
assistance program that serves more people and that is both appropriate
and long-overdue. But the program still does not cover all the people
that are negatively affected by trade, and that is, I am afraid,
inappropriate and equally long-overdue. Of equal significance, it does
not guarantee that the people who are covered by trade adjustment
assistance get the efficient, effective, and prompt services they
deserve. These assurances are nowhere to be found in the bill. This is
unfortunate and unsatisfactory, as it is the fundamental reason that I
wrote the trade adjustment assistance legislation in the first place.
Although we have come a long way on trade adjustment assistance, we
have a longer way to go, and it is my intention to revisit this issue
in the 108th Congress. I introduced this trade adjustment assistance
bill, I will introduce another in the next Congress, and I hope my
colleagues will support it
On the fast-track bill, let me say that here too we did not go as far
as I would have liked on a range of very important issues: labor, the
environment, investment, and trade remedy laws. But that said, we have
come farther than we ever have before in the past, and we have signaled
to the administration and the international trade community that we
will not enter into agreements that do not address these issues
directly.
As for the lack of ``teeth'' in the bill, I would have to agree to a
certain extent. That said, there are provisions in this bill to ensure
that Congress has very significant input in the trade negotiation
process. Moreover, Congress has the option to withdraw fast-track
authority if the administration does not consistently and honestly
consult with Congress on these key trade issues. As far as I am
concerned, the oversight provisions are the crux of the matter, as
without them, even the strongest language on labor, or the environment,
are meaningless. It is incumbent upon Congress now to analyze what
occurs in trade negotiations and ensure that what is agreed to
increases high-wage jobs and American competitiveness.
In sum, I think there are significant problems with the trade bill,
but not enough to warrant a vote in the negative. I think we have taken
a strong step forward here in that this bill provides us with the tools
to increase the economic security of the United States. I don't believe
we help American workers by sitting back and doing nothing on trade.
Rather, I think it is important that we take an active role in defining
the terms of trade, and this bill allows us to do that.
The debate on the trade bill occurred, we have found a compromise,
and now it is time for the Administration and Congress to make trade
work for the American people.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in recent years, I have supported fast
track legislation, I voted for NAFTA, for the last round of the GATT
and the creation of the WTO. I supported China's accession to the WTO.
I am convinced by the overall fundamental performance of our economy,
during a period of expanded trade and the successful completion of
trade deals, that expanding international trade generally and expanding
markets for American products in particular is good for the United
States.
With every step down the road toward a freer, more open international
trading system, I believe that the risks are becoming greater and the
rewards are less clear.
The risks we face--to our own workers' ability to control their
destinies, to the peoples of our new trading partners, to the global
environment--are growing as we expand trade deals into regions of the
world that lack many of the fundamentals needed for a balanced trade
relationship.
The rewards from moving deeper into those less developed economies
could be substantial, for us and for them. But I am afraid that without
stronger protections, and those benefits may never materialize for the
vast majority of the citizens of the poorest developing nations.
At the same time, without strong protections for the men and women
whose jobs--in some cases whose towns, in many cases whose whole way of
life is at risk without protections for them, they, too, will see
little or nothing of the benefits of freer trade.
That is why I am going to vote against the conference report before
us today, not because I expect it to be defeated, but because I fully
expect it to pass, and I want to make it clear that I, as one Senator,
have gone about as far as I can go in my support of freer trade without
some stronger assurances that the gains will outweigh the risks, and
that those gains will be fairly and efficiently distributed.
I voted for many amendments to the Senate fast-track bill, amendments
that would have provided some of the assurances I am seeking. I voted
for stronger protections for our State and local environmental laws
when they are threatened by foreign firms. I voted for stronger
protections for labor and environmental standards in trade deals with
developing nations.
Even though those and other amendments were not adopted, I
nevertheless supported sending the bill on to a conference with the
House.
Today we are voting on a bill that not only lacks those provisions,
but has weakened many of the important improvements in the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program that were contained in the Senate
version.
As we expand trade among the nations of the world, we are engaged in
a real-life experiment in economic theory. I believe that expanding
markets and opportunities are indispensable to a better life for the
people of our country as well as for the citizens of other nations.
Just as indispensable are political rights, human rights, a healthy
environment--things that we cannot just take for granted, things that
aren't provided automatically by the invisible hand of the market.

[[Page S7833]]

That is particularly true as we undertake to integrate our developed
economy--as well as our system of political and human rights, our
strong environmental protection standards, our history and institutions
of labor rights.
We do ourselves no good, and the citizens of other nations no good,
if we fail to maintain those values in balance with the real, tangible
benefits of free trade.
Because this new chapter in the history of expanding trade presents
so many challenges, public opinion, here and abroad, shows a deep
concern about the ultimate costs of global economic integration.
Of course, there are still those who believe trade itself is the
cause of most of the world's problems, and on the other side, there are
those who blithely assume that expanded trade itself is the highest
goal.
I think we should listen to the common sense of the average citizen,
both here and abroad. They understand the benefits that can come from
free markets, but they hold other values, too.
They want to maintain control over their own fates, and the fates of
their families, their towns, their countries. They want to treat the
environment responsibly.
They want, to maintain some balance among the values they hold.
So I will vote no today, in the knowledge that we will be granting
this administration and the next one the authority to negotiate and
bring home important new trade deals, in a new round of WTO talks, and
in other key areas.
I hope they use this authority wisely, and that they treat the
negotiating objectives we are giving them today as a floor and not a
ceiling on the standards they apply in their negotiations.
If they do not, they should not bring us trade deals for our
consideration under this fast track authority. Along with the authority
we are granting the administration, we are providing ourselves, in
Congress with new oversight of the progress of trade talks.
We will use this new authority to keep our negotiators on course. The
slim margin in the House, and the vigorous debate on the Senate bill
should provide ample guidance about the standards we will apply to any
trade deal negotiated under this authority.
We will continue to remind our negotiators of those concerns over the
three-year life of this authority. A 2-year renewal will not be
automatic not in this new climate of concern about the net benefits of
trade nor should it be.
My ``no'' vote today is not a vote against expanded trade. It is a
vote against complacency in the conduct of our trade negotiations.
Today is not the end of the debate on this new grant of fast track
authority. It is the beginning.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant support of this
conference report. The underlying bill granting the President authority
to negotiate trade agreements is critical. The problem is all of the
other extraneous costly provisions in the trade assistance portion of
the report. On balance, it has only been marginally improved during
conference, and, in fact, one could argue that it has been made worse
by the addition of a misguided and fiscally reckless new entitlement
program.
When this bill last came before the Senate, I outlined four main
concerns, and said that how those issues were addressed in conference
would influence my vote on the final version of the bill. First, I said
the conference report would have to maintain the 2002-2006 suspension
of the 4.9 percent tariff on steam generators for nuclear power
facilities. That was accomplished. Second, the conference report would
have to remove the so-called Dayton-Craig language. That was
accomplished. Third, it would need to either eliminate or substantially
amend the language creating a ``wage insurance'' program for workers
age 50 and older who are certified under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program. That was not accomplished. Fourth, the conference
report would have to make significant changes in the health-insurance
tax credit for TAA-certified workers. That was not accomplished, and
arguably, the provision was made worse.
More specifically, the Senate-passed bill and the conference report
will suspend for a period of five years the 4.9 percent tariff on steam
generators used by nuclear facilities. These generators are not
manufactured in the United States, so there is no domestic industry to
protect through the imposition of tariffs. 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.
The existing tariff amounts to a ``tax'' of approximately $1.5
million per generator. Although ostensibly paid by utilities, the cost
would actually be passed on to ratepayers and consumers. In the case of
the Palo Verde plant in Arizona, the nation's largest nuclear power
facility in terms of production, the additional cost, due to the
tariff, would be over $8.2 million for the six generators that it will
need to import.
The tariff suspension will save ratepayers money, which is why it has
strong bipartisan support. I appreciate the conferees maintaining this
provision in the conference report.
I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to remove the so-called
``Dayton-Craig'' language. This is a provision that would have made it
easier to defeat legislation negotiated under trade-promotion authority
if it amended U.S. trade remedies, no matter how technical or even
beneficial the change might be. It would have resulted in the
unraveling of successful trade negotiations. Moreover, the provision
was unnecessary since language is already included in the bill 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.''
The next issue of concern to me involved the many trade-adjustment
assistance, TAA, provisions in the bill. One such provision was the new
``wage insurance'' entitlement, which would provide a subsidy of up to
$5,000 for older TAA-certified workers who are subsequently employed at
lower-paying jobs. With no data supporting the efficacy of such a
proposal, this provision would create significant disincentives for
workers to forgo needed training or conduct a more intensive job
search, likely resulting in workers choosing lower paying and perhaps
lower-skilled jobs with taxpayers liable for the difference. It is
indeed unfortunate that conferees were unable to remove this provision.
Although the nature of the entitlement is altered somewhat, it remains
deeply flawed.
Another provision in this conference report would provide an
advanceable, refundable health-insurance tax credit to TAA-certified
workers. Although the conferees agreed to lower this tax subsidy from
70 percent to 65 percent, the credit remains at an arbitrarily high
percentage of the premiums' cost.
With one small exception, the credit can only be used to subsidize
the cost of company-based, COBRA, or pooled health-insurance policies.
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. Under an extremely small exception,
individuals will be able to use the credit for the purchase of an
individual health insurance if the policy is bought at least one month
before unemployment. This restriction makes the small exception for the
purchase of individual health insurance nearly worthless.
Worst of all is the poison pill that was added to the conference
report. By expanding the eligibility for the health tax credit to
retirees receiving benefits from defunct pension plans taken over by
the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC, the conference report
has taken a significant step backwards. Potentially, this provision
could end up covering individuals who worked for companies that went
out of business 20 years ago. Today, these individuals will be eligible
for this new benefit. These individuals, who will often be 55 years or
older, will be included in the pool of workers benefitting from new
Trade Adjustment Assistance health provisions, making it even more
expensive for the relatively younger workers to purchase health
insurance. Aside from doubling the costs of these health provisions,
which now total over $4.8 billion over 10 years, this legislation could
have numerous other unintended consequences on our pension system. It

[[Page S7834]]

allows companies that over-promised benefits to walk away from their
obligation and leave taxpayers with the bill.
As a matter of principle on the one hand, and sound economic policy
on the other, I still believe it is imperative that we grant the
President trade-promotion authority. As a Senator who is committed to
expanding free trade and its accompanying benefits, I am frustrated
that this legislation has been loaded up with costly new entitlement
programs.
I will vote for this bill because I know how important it is to grant
the President Trade Promotion Authority. But because of the numerous
bad provisions in the bill, and the bad precedents they set, the
decision does not come easy. That shouldn't have been the case.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this conference
report. Although I am disappointed that several provisions were removed
in conference, on balance this legislation still represents a major
expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance that is crucial for those
workers who have lost their jobs due to imports or plant relocations to
other countries.
I supported this legislation during the Finance Committee's markup,
as well as during the Senate vote in May as I have been involved with
this legislation for over a year with hearings, markups, negotiations,
consideration by the Senate, and now the consideration of the
conference report. I worked with Senator Bingaman on the Trade
Adjustment Assistance, TAA provisions and then with Senators Grassley
and Baucus. In the same manner, both agreed to a critical expansion of
the existing TAA program while also including provisions I advocated to
accelerate assistance to dislocated workers and provide them with
greater options in the utilization of these benefits. And, when the
healthcare provision of TAA threatened to scuttle the bill, Senator
Baucus and I worked together to fashion a deal that would be acceptable
to both Republicans and Democrats.
At no point was my decision to support the Senate package, and the
TPA section in particular, a foregone conclusion, as I have opposed
trade agreements and fast-track authority in the past. I did so because
I never felt they struck the proper balance between free and fair
trade, and I've been concerned that both Republican and Democrat
administrations approached the enforcement of U.S. trade laws not with
vigor, but with at best a benign neglect.
However, when the Finance Committee marked-up this fast-track
legislation in December and the Senate passed it in May, I supported it
precisely because it did strike the appropriate balance, and because of
this administration's commitment to aggressively enforce our trade laws
so that American workers aren't undermined by unfair trade practices.
Furthermore, while some oppose linking TPA and TAA as contained in
this trade package, my support is contingent on this linkage and I have
repeatedly emphasized the importance of joining these proposals that
are inextricably joined. TAA would not even exist if not for the fact
that trade agreements impact U.S. jobs, so attempting to bifurcate TAA
and TPA is like trying to divide the ``heads'' from the ``tails'' on a
coin--sure, it may be possible, but the end product won't be worth one
red cent!
TPA and TAA were enjoined and I supported that approach because we
must never forget that in the engagement of trade there is a downside--
chiefly, that real lives are affected, people not just statistics. When
Americans become unemployed due to increased imports or plant
relocations to other countries, it is because of trade agreements
negotiated by the government of the United States and passed by
Congress. Therefore, we have an obligation to also work toward forging
a system that provides these trade-impacted Americans with the new
skills needed to gain new employment.
This conference report does contain many provisions on both trade and
trade adjustment assistance that I think are critical components that
make them better than in the past. An expanded TAA program is going to
be created, which I support, that will allow more workers to receive
re-training and income support assistance quicker and for a longer
period of time. This income support and re-training is vital to ensure
that these workers can re-enter the workforce and also provide
temporary assistance while they are learning new skills.

There are also provisions I fought for that will help speed up the
approval process. Specifically, besides consolidating the current TAA
and NAFTA-TAA programs into one, more efficient program, the bill
includes my proposal to speed-up assistance to displaced workers by
decreasing the TAA petition time for certification from 60 days to 40
days. Reducing this time by 20 days will allow people to get on with
their lives that much quicker.
The TAA section also provides a 65 percent tax credit for trade-
impacted workers to continue their health coverage for themselves and
their family. This tax credit is ``advanceable'' so that people will
receive this assistance immediately rather than paying up front to get
a tax refund later.
Moreover, this bill addresses another issue that has created problems
in my State this year, the current budget for training assistance.
Since last year, Maine has run short of training funds by almost $3
million, forcing them to apply for five different Department of Labor
National Emergency Grants and potentially causing a freeze in re-
training assistance. By providing $220 million in funding, this
shortfall will be fully addressed.
And we didn't stop there. Not only does this funding level address
state shortfalls, but it also ensures expanded coverage for secondary
workers affected by trade. Specifically, under the compromise developed
by Senators Grassley and Baucus, secondary workers with a direct
relationship to the downsizing or closing of a plant will be covered by
TAA, while so-called ``downstream workers'' covered now under a
Statement of Administrative Action, SAA, as part of the NAFTA-TAA
program will also be covered through the SAA's codification.
But make no mistake, the conference report does not contain some
provisions that would be vital to people and communities adversely
impacted by trade. Specifically, a small business pilot program that
would allow those workers receiving TAA to start a small business
without losing their benefits was dropped. Performance assessments of
the TAA program that included the economic condition of the state were
dropped, as were all performance requirements.
Not only were these removed but so was TAA for fishermen. Instead,
this bill requires a study to determine whether TAA for fishermen is
``appropriate and feasible''. What is amazing is that TAA for farmers
is covered in this bill but that somehow their coverage would be
different than for fishermen. That is why we are working right now with
the Department of Labor on administrative procedures to ensure that
fishermen will be eligible for TAA.
TAA for communities was also dropped in conference. This would have
allowed communities that suffered a plant closure due to import
competition to apply for grants in order to attract new businesses. As
in my home State of Maine, many States have rural towns that are
dependent on a single plant for their livelihood and this provision
would have given them a chance should that plant close.
In addition, coverage for workers that have watched their plant
move overseas, known as shifts in production, has also been limited in
the bill. As opposed to granting eligibility to workers whose plant
moved to any country overseas, this conference report limits coverage
only to those workers whose plant moved to a country that has a Free
Trade Agreement, FTA, with the U.S., is a country receiving the reduced
duties or duty-free benefits of the ATPA, the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act, AGOA, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, or, if
there has been an increase in imports from the country to which the
plant moved.

This may appear to cover all the bases, except for the possibility
that a plant will move overseas and may not actually import back to the
U.S., thus there will be no increase in imports. If the U.S. has no FTA
with that country or it is not participating in a U.S. duty-reduction
program like the ATPA, then those workers are not eligible for TAA. How
are these workers

[[Page S7835]]

affected differently from others who lose their jobs due to imports?
As I said earlier, on balance, the TAA provisions represent a
significant expansion and improvement of the former TAA and NAFTA-TAA
programs and will provide an invaluable service to those dislocated
workers as they seek new jobs. While the government is assisting
workers whose jobs have been lost due to imports, this bill also
provides the Administration with the ability, through TPA, to negotiate
trade agreements that will improve and increase U.S. exports. As I
mentioned earlier, my past opposition to fast-track, due to concerns
about the balance between free and fair trade and our enforcement of
our trade laws, have been addressed in this bill.
The bottom line is that enforcement is an inseparable component of
free and fair trade. If you don't believe me, just look at the record.
In the past, when free trade and fair trade have been treated as
mutually exclusive, import-sensitive industries in Maine and America
were decimated by foreign competitors. Why? Because foreign businesses
enjoyed the benefits of a lack of reciprocity in trade agreements,
foreign industry subsidies, dumping in the U.S. market . . . and non-
tariff trade barriers.
For this reason, I was disappointed that the Dayton-Craig language on
trade remedy laws was removed in conference. However, the fact that the
existing language on maintaining our ability to ``enforce rigorously''
our trade remedy laws became a Principal Negotiating Objective
demonstrates a recognition of the utmost importance with which we hold
these laws. In that regard, the Administration should take note that no
trade agreement should ever be submitted to this Congress that weakens
our trade remedy laws. As a member of the Finance Committee, I will do
everything that I can to ensure that no trade agreement never ever
weakens or undermines these laws.
The enforcement of our trade remedy laws are vital as the surrender
of our rights have had serious consequences in the lives of real
people. In Maine alone, we lost nearly 15,400 manufacturing jobs since
NAFTA's inception including 2,400 textile jobs, 6,000 leather products
jobs, 500 apparel jobs, 3,700 paper and allied products jobs, and 4,800
footwear jobs, excluding rubber footwear, and 5,200 manufacturing jobs
so far just this year. We failed those people because we abdicated our
responsibility to take a balanced, comprehensive and integrated
approach to trade.
That is why I can not and will not support the Andean Trade
Preference Act, ATPA. I opposed this during the Finance Committee's
markup of the legislation and, although I supported the Senate's trade
package legislation, I opposed its inclusion in the trade package.
The ATPA represents a unilateral action by the U.S. to open our
markets to the Andean countries in order to bolster their economies in
the hopes of reducing drug cultivation. Its effect the last ten years
has been questionable with the ITC not able to make a definitive,
affirmative determination that it has greatly contributed to the
reduction of drug cultivation by providing economic opportunities.
The amount of exports from these countries which fall exclusively
under the ATPA has remained relatively constant at 10 percent over the
years. The fact that this has changed little indicates that there has
been no major change in the production structure of ATPA economies
meaning that these countries have not been taking more advantage of
what ATPA offered. Therefore, what this legislation seeks to do is
change our policies to conform to the Andean countries rather than
these countries changing to take advantage of what the U.S. has already
offered. U.S. jobs are on the line for an unproven trade benefit
program.
That is why I worked in the ATPA to provide the rubber footwear
industry with a comparable tariff provision to that which they received
in NAFTA. The original ATPA further threatened this industry by giving
the four Andean nations a tariff phase-out schedule that was only half
as long as the 15-year schedule contained in the NAFTA. I was pleased
that the Senate passed the trade package last May with this same 15
year phaseout, because without it we would have set a precedent that
would be demanded by other countries as well.
This conference report drops this provision and with it went the
hopes of the domestic rubber footwear industry and its 3,400 workers--
1,000 of which are in Maine. Not only was my provision lost, but the
Senate receded to the House. Under this, all footwear--that was
excluded under the expired ATPA legislation, as well as textiles and
apparels, leather products, and watches will enter the U.S. duty-free
with no phaseout.
Such an immediate tariff reduction to zero will only serve as a sign
to other countries, particularly Chile and Latin America nations, that
the U.S. rubber footwear industry, once considered import-sensitive, is
not only open for business, but for decimation. For this reason, I have
been working with the USTR to impress upon them the significance this
precedent will have on other trade agreements, particularly with Chile.
I am pleased that the USTR provided me with unequivocal assurances that
the ATPA provisions regarding rubber footwear in no way establishes a
precedent for Chile, and that they will continue their efforts to
prevent any adverse impact during trade negotiations on domestic rubber
footwear.
And while we cannot bring back these or other jobs that were lost due
to the miscues of the past, we can learn from those miscues and apply
the lessons to our present and future actions. We can change our
approach at the negotiating table. We can enforce existing trade laws.
In the real world, we have to acknowledge that there are many nations
that don't care about labor or environmental standards. And that
creates a tilted playing field where it's harder for us to compete. In
that regard, this legislation goes further than any past fast-track
bills on the issues of labor and the environment. The bill before us
today not only sets as an overall objective the need to convince our
trading partners not to weaken their labor or environmental laws as an
inducement to trade, but it also requires the enforcement of existing
labor and environmental laws as a principal negotiating objective.
The conference report also recognizes the need to take steps to
protect the import sensitive textile and apparel industry. It calls for
reducing tariffs on textiles and apparels in other countries to the
same or lower levels than in the U.S., reducing or eliminating
subsidies to provide for greater market opportunities for U.S. textiles
and apparels, and ensuring that WTO member countries immediately
fulfill their obligations to provide similar market access for U.S.
textiles and apparels as the U.S. does for theirs.
And this legislation includes new negotiating objectives to address
the issue of foreign subsidies and market distortions that lead to
dumping. As a result, many industries stand to benefit from the
adoption of this legislation, including the forest and paper,
agriculture, semiconductor, precision manufacturing, and electronic
industries of my home state. According to Maine Governor Angus King the
fast track approach is, ``On balance . . . beneficial to Maine. There
might be some short term problems, but in the long run, we have to
participate in the world economy.''
And Maine has been participating. From 1989 to 1999, total exports by
Maine companies increased by 137 percent from $914 million to $2.167
billion, with the largest industry sector for trade being
semiconductors--employing about 2,000 in Maine. The computer and
electronics trade, which includes semiconductors, accounted for 33
percent of Maine's exports in 1999, followed by paper and allied
products at 17 percent.
The Maine industries that benefit from exports have also seen job
gains in the state. From 1994 to 1999, the electrical and electronics
industry had a job gain of 2.3 percent and the agriculture, forestry
and fishing industry saw a 19 percent increase in jobs. In 2000,
Maine's exports supported 84,000 jobs.
Mr. President, these measures and commitments represent a significant
strengthening of our resolve and our ability to utilize existing
remedies to protect American industries and workers. This comes not a
moment too soon, as the success of our economy relies more than ever on
fair and freer

[[Page S7836]]

trade U.S. exports accounted for one-quarter of U.S. economic growth
over the past decade . . . nearly one in six manufactured products
coming off the assembly line goes to a foreign customer . . . and
exports support 1 of every 5 manufacturing jobs.
Given these facts, it is an understandable concern that the U.S. has
been party to only 3 free trade agreements while there are more than
130 worldwide. Since 1995, the WTO has been notified of 90 such
agreements while the U.S. only reached one in the trade arena, the
Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, the European Union, EU, has
been particularly aggressive, having entered into 27 free trade
agreements since 1990 and they are actively negotiating another 15.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Business Roundtable reports that 33
percent of total world exports are covered by EU free trade agreements
compared to 11 percent for U.S. agreements.
Why should these facts raise concerns? Because every agreement made
without us is a threat to American jobs. Nowhere is this better
exemplified than in Chile which signed a free trade agreement with
Canada, Argentina and several other nations in 1997.
Since that time, the U.S. has lost one-quarter of Chile's import
market, while nations entering into trade agreements more than captured
our lost share. According to the National Association of Manufacturers
(NAM), this resulted in the loss of more than $800 million in U.S.
exports and 100,000 job opportunities. One specific industry affected
was U.S. paper products which accounted for 30 percent of Chile's
imports but has since dropped to only 11 percent after the trade
agreements were signed.
We need to look to the future of our industries and open doors of
opportunity in the global marketplace. In order to do so responsibly,
we need to learn every economic lesson possible from the past, and this
package provides for not only a study I requested of the economic
impact of the past five trade agreements, but also an additional
evaluation of any new agreements before TPA is extended.
And we need to make sure that everyone who can benefit from these
agreements can get their foot in the door. Small businesses, for
example, account for 30 percent of all U.S. goods exported, and in
Maine more than 78 percent export, so I am pleased this bill includes
my proposals placing small businesses in our principle negotiating
objectives.
Finally, the package includes consultation rights for the House and
Senate Committees with oversight of the fishing industry. As the past
Chair and current Ranking Member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans
and Fisheries, I can tell you that the actions of other countries with
regard to fishing plays a crucial role in ensuring our industry has a
level playing field on which to compete. Last year this country
exported $11 billion worth of edible and nonedible fish products, and
in Maine the industry--which is our 5th leading exporter--generates
26,000 jobs.
In the eleventh hour race, Mr. President, as was the case with many
TAA provisions, some other items that were crucial for small businesses
which make up 99 percent of all U.S. businesses were also lost. One was
a provision to create a small business Assistant USTR which the Senate-
passed bill included. Although the conference report states that the
Assistant USTR for Industry and Telecommunications would be responsible
for this portfolio, it contains a only sense of Congress that the title
reflect that. I am shocked at how seemingly difficult it was for us to
create a position for small business at the USTR with a title that
reflects that fact.
Similarly, a provision requiring the USTR to identify someone to be a
small business advocate in the WTO is also no longer in this bill. Why?
Is it that controversial for us to ensure that the interests of small
business are represented in the WTO?
This is not a perfect bill but the adoption of this comprehensive
package will ensure that trade agreements will be pursued in a fair and
balanced manner to the benefit of all Americans while also recognizing
the need for expanded assistance for those who lose their jobs due to
trade.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer some comments on the
fast-track conference agreement.
Once again, the supporters of this measure seek to characterize this
vote as a vote on the issue of whether or not we should have trade
agreements. They argue that to favor the bill is to favor trade, and to
oppose the bill is to oppose trade.
Of course, this is nonsense.
As a number of my colleagues have noted, the issue of whether to
enact fast-track procedures is not a question of whether one favors or
opposes free trade, but rather what role Congress plays in trade
agreements.
Under this bill, that role will be little more than that of one of
those bobble-head dolls--nodding its head ``yes'' or shaking its head
``no'' in response to proposed trade agreements.
And it may actually be worse, because nothing in the measure before
us limits this bobble-head role strictly to trade agreements. Under
this bill, the President is at liberty to submit just about any policy
he wants as part of a fast-track protected trade bill, and Congress
would have to swallow that policy if it wanted to endorse the trade
agreement to which it was attached.
As I noted during the debate on this bill last May, this has, in
fact, occurred. The last fast-track protected trade agreement this body
considered, the measure implementing the Uruguay Round of the GATT,
included more than $4 billion in tax increases that were beyond the
reach of this body to amend or even delete.
Of course, some may argue that the risk that extraneous matters might
be slipped into a fast-track protected trade bill is greatly reduced
because the two trade committees--the Finance Committee in the Senate
and the Ways and Means Committee in the other body--will stand guard
against such an event, protecting congressional prerogatives.
Let me first note that the GATT bill, with its $4 billion in tax
increases, came to us with the blessing of those two committees.
More recently, the track record of those two committees on this very
legislation is not reassuring. The bill before us includes many
questionable provisions, but let me cite two in particular that have
absolutely no business being in the measure. They both raise serious
civil rights and civil liberties concerns.
The first of these two issues relates to immunity for customs
officers. Central to any lawsuit against a government official alleged
to have committed misconduct is the immunity standard for that
official. Under Supreme Court law, every government official--federal,
state and local--is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
This is a very broad shield from liability. In the words of the Supreme
Court, it protects ``all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.'' And it is the type of immunity that sets
the bar plaintiffs must overcome to win law suits.
In the legislation before us, a provision was slipped in that will
make it harder to hold an abusive customs officer accountable for bad
behavior. The bill changes the immunity standard from one of
``objective'' immunity, meaning an official had to prove that he or she
did not violate clearly established law, to ``good faith'' immunity,
meaning that the official only had to prove that he or she believed
that he or she was not violating a person's constitutional rights and
was not acting with a malicious intent.
The practical effect of this change is that an abusive officer will
merely have to file an affidavit stating that he or she acted in good
faith, and the case will be dismissed. This would make it very
difficult for a court to hold a customs officer accountable for abusive
behavior, behavior such as racial profiling.
Putting aside the question of whether or not this provision belongs
in a bill that relates to the procedures under which Congress considers
trade bills, the provision is not justified. There is no record of any
great abuse of the existing system.
Some might suggest that because customs officers work on the border,
they need special protection. But Border Patrol agents and other law
enforcement officers like FBI, DEA, and local police are stationed near
borders, and they will all continue to work under an objective immunity
standard.

[[Page S7837]]

Beyond that, this provision has no business in this bill. It has
nothing to do with how Congress should consider trade agreements. And
it certainly merits the kind of scrutiny that it will not get as part
of a conference report that cannot be amended.
A similarly inappropriate but little discussed provision in this bill
would allow customs officers to search outgoing mail without the
approval of a court. That is right. Under this bill, a customs officer
can open mail you send overseas without getting a search warrant.
The provision applies to all mail weighing more than 16 ounces no
matter how it is sent, and it also applies to any mail under 16 ounces,
that is sent through a private carrier, such as Federal Express or UPS.
This is an enormous change in law. A customs officer would no longer
have to go to court to obtain a warrant to search our mail. It takes
away much of the protection we all thought we had when we mail a letter
to a friend or relative overseas.
Again, setting aside the question of whether the provision has merit,
it simply has no business in this bill.
These two provisions are deeply flawed, in and of themselves, but
they should also give us pause when we consider what future proposals
we might see included in fast-track protected trade bills--measures
that cannot be amended. If the congressional committee watchdogs
allowed these provisions to be slipped into this bill, what might find
its way into future measures?
And I remind my colleagues that there are no requirements in this
bill that fast-track protected bills consist only of provisions
germane, or even relevant, to the trade agreement to be implemented.
The bill is flawed in a number of other critical ways. As others have
noted, the bill moves backwards in the area of worker rights and the
environment. It even backslides from the modest progress made in the
Jordan Free Trade Agreement.
The bill also guts the Dayton-Craig provisions that sought to ensure
our own trade laws would not be undercut as part of a fast-track
protected trade bill. That amendment was supported by a strong majority
of the Senate, but it was essentially eliminated in conference. In
fact, there is little doubt that it was dropped even before this bill
went to conference.
Nor does this bill address the so-called Chapter 11, issue where
foreign investors can use secret trade tribunals to effectively weaken
or eliminate existing state and local laws and regulations that protect
our health and safety. Because that problem is not addressed, we can
expect future trade agreements to include this anti-democratic
provision.
As I noted during the debate we had on this issue last May, fast-
track is not necessary for free trade. We have entered into hundreds of
agreements without those procedures.
More importantly, fast-track may actually undermine the cause of
improved trade.
As I noted then, rather than encouraging trade agreements that
produce broad-based benefits, fast-track has instead fostered trade
agreements that pick ``winners and losers,'' and in doing so has
undermined public support for pursuing free trade agreements.
Fast-track also advances the short-term interests of multinational
corporations over those of the average worker and consumer. With
opposition to the entire trade bill the only option left, Congress has
swallowed provisions that advance corporate interests, even when they
come at the expense of our Nation's interests. The so-called Chapter 11
provisions are an excellent example of this. Here again, fast-track
procedures actually work to undermine public support for trade
agreements.
Let me reiterate that many of us who support free and fair trade find
nothing inconsistent with that support and insisting that Congress be a
full partner in approving agreements.
Indeed, as the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has
noted, support for fast-track procedures reveals a lack of confidence
in the ability of our negotiators to craft a sound agreement, or a lack
of confidence in the ability of Congress to weigh regional and sectoral
interests against the national interest, or may simply be a desire by
the Executive Branch to avoid the hard work necessary to convince
Congress to support the agreements that it negotiates.
I can think of no better insurance policy for a sound trade agreement
than the prospect of a thorough Congressional review, complete with the
ability to amend that agreement.
This was a bad bill when it left the Senate. It is much worse now,
and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President. I rise to share my thoughts on the trade
bill we passed this afternoon that gives our President renewed trade
negotiating authority
Like many of my colleagues, I hail from a State that is particularly
sensitive to foreign imports of agricultural products, for example
Wyoming's two largest cash crops are sugar and cattle, and where trade
makes a big impact on certain industries.
I believe in fair trade, and I support the efforts of our President
as he works to improve our multilateral and bilateral relationships. I
have also worked diligently with Members from both sides of the aisle
to improve our ability to participate in international trade. You will
remember I urged my colleagues last year to vote for the Export
Administration Act, a bill which would streamline our export control
system so that items that do not need to be controlled may move more
easily across borders. I believe that international trade is an
effective way to boost the economy, but it must be done responsibly and
carefully.
I voted in favor of this bill today for three primary reasons.
First, I strongly support the bill's provisions that recognize the
sensitive nature of some industries. I believe the most essential
provision related to import sensitive goods is the mandate that
requires the President to consult with Industry Advisory Committees and
the International Trade Commission on certain negotiations. This bill
requires the administration to notify and gather input during trade
negotiations from people like ranchers and farmers who produce import-
sensitive products.
Second, as an original cosponsor of the Craig-Dayton Amendment, the
new language in the bill addressing trade remedy laws is critical. The
bill provides that if negotiators don't listen to concerns about
proposed changes to trade remedy laws, Congress can pass a formal
resolution of disapproval. This puts up a red flag to the negotiators
that they are treading on shaky ground and may want to rethink their
position. In addition, I am also pleased this bill sets rigorous
enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws as a principal negotiating
objective and increases reporting requirements for possible
modifications to trade laws.
Third, there is specific language in this bill that addresses a major
concern of sugar producers. Wyoming sugar producers have been hurt by a
``sugar laundering'' operation being conducted through Canada. The
process starts when a commodity trader in Canada blends sugar, water
and molasses in a ratio that would exempt the mixture from U.S. import
duties Canada enjoys under the North American Free Trade Agreement,
NAFTA. This mixture is then trucked across the U.S. border to a factory
controlled by the same commodity trader where the sugar is separated
from the molasses mixture. The sugar is then sold in the U.S. market
free of tariffs and the rest of the mixture is returned to Canada to be
``stuffed'' again. The ``sugar loophole'' and others like it would be
closed by this trade bill. The bill makes the determination that
stuffed molasses should be considered imported sugar and therefore
subject to tariffs. It also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
monitor other existing or likely circumventions of tariff-rate quotas
and report on these to the President.
Beyond these specific reasons, I cast my affirmative vote today
because fair trade is essential to the economic growth of all
industries. The next step is rule and regulation, and I will carefully
watch to ensure that the interests of Wyomingites are protected.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will support this final conference report
to give the President the authority to negotiate nonamendable trade
agreements and to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
I am

[[Page S7838]]

pleased that this TAA package provides greater benefits to more workers
than ever before.
The Nation's economy is fundamentally linked to our Nation's ability
to export. 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. Businesses
in Massachusetts alone 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. Massachusetts businesses also
help break the stereotype of international trade as the arena of large
corporations. 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. These
statistics present a strong case for support of this bill.
I believe strongly that more international trade results in a greater
occasion to help developing countries grow and develop the roots of
democracy. The chance to improve ties with other countries and use
trade as one means of advancing American foreign policy is an
opportunity that we should not pass up. And so I will support this
conference report.
However, we do ourselves a great disservice to ignore the growing
concerns of our own people who view the trade equation as imbalanced:
Working families in mill towns across New England or steel towns in the
Midwest who fear that we have looked only at the export side of the
puzzle, ignoring our fundamental obligations to a clean environment,
basic labor standards and to those Americans whose lives change when
factories close or businesses cannot compete with cheaper foreign-
produced products.
Some important safeguards were in the Senate-passed bill. Indeed, the
bill that passed the Senate in May was precedent-setting in many ways.
We would have provided trade promotion authority to the President while
also firmly stating that our Nation's trade remedy laws should not be
eviscerated by trade agreements. Significantly, we provided the
strongest safety net ever to workers left jobless by the short-term
economic upheaval that comes from increased international trade. We
also had a thorough debate on the importance of labor and environmental
standards in trade agreements, and on my efforts to prevent investor-
State disputes from undermining U.S. public health and safety laws. I
have no doubt that the Senate will come back to these issues in the
future.
Unfortunately, this conference report represents a mild retreat from
the Senate-passed bill. The conference report does not protect American
trade remedy laws. The safety net for workers is less comprehensive
than it could have, and should have, been. It still does not adequately
preserve American sovereignty in directing trade negotiators how to
develop settlement panels for investor-State disputes.
As a result, we can only hope that our trade negotiators will not
undermine the values that many Americans worry are not being honored in
our trade agreements. To be quite honest, though, I have some concerns
that the President will not make a full commitment to either the
environment or the basic rights of workers in future trade agreements,
because he has not done these things at home. And so it must fall to
the Senate to put the President on notice that he must address the
concerns that Americans have about trade. I, for one, will be watching
agreements that grow out of this trade promotion authority very
closely.
I must make one more point. With respect to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program, this bill is not as good as the one the Senate
passed 3 months ago. But this bill does expand benefits for workers who
lose their jobs due to increased foreign competition in ways that,
frankly, would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. That is
real progress. If we are to continue to seek the benefits of increased
trade, we must also fulfill our commitment to families and communities
whose lives are disrupted by the short-term impacts of trade.
I am particularly disappointed that the conference report did not
retain the important new program making TAA available to fishermen.
This program was included in the TAA bill marked up by the Finance
Committee last December and included in the bill that passed the Senate
in May. U.S. fish imports now outstrip exports by $7 billion, due in
some measure to the fact that no other nation in the world requires
sustainable fishing practices. This deficit may soon put some fishermen
out of business.
While a separate program for fishermen makes sense, the
administration has informed me that fishermen who seek TAA benefits
through the Department of Labor will indeed be eligible, although they
may have to seek a blending of TAA and Workforce Investment Act
benefits. Nonetheless, I have the Department's pledge to work with me
on this issue, and I look forward to doing just that.
I have also been informed that the Secretary of Agriculture will do a
rulemaking to determine whether fishermen are eligible for the TAA for
Farmers program as well. I will make sure that the Secretary is aware
of my strong belief that fishermen are no different from farmers, and
deserve equivalent consideration in this program. I ask unanimous
consent that these letters be made a part of the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Labor, Assistant Secretary for
Employment and Training,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2002.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: I understand that you have a strong
interest in providing assistance to workers and fishermen
impacted by trade or for other reasons. We at the Department
of Labor share your desire to help all dislocated workers get
back to work.
Workers, including fishermen, who lose their jobs through
no fault of their own can receive a wide range of employment
and training services through the Workforce Investment Act
formula programs. On July 1, 2002, Massachusetts received an
allotment of $55,189,519, of which $12,321,163 is allocated
to serve dislocated workers. When these formula funds are
insufficient to respond to a mass lay-off, plant closure or
natural disaster, the Secretary of Labor has discretion to
award National Emergency Grants, which are authorized under
section 173 of the Workforce Investment Act. National
Emergency Grants provide resources for job training and
reemployment assistance, as well as supportive services for
child-care, transportation and needs-related payments for
income support while a worker is enrolled in training.
Workers who are impacted by trade may qualify for TAA
benefits. Although the Department of Labor has not received
any petitions for certification of eligibility for TAA
assistance from fishermen over the last five fiscal years,
they certainly could apply as long as they meet the
requirements of the Act. For example, one of the criteria for
TAA eligibility is that the impacted firm has to be involved
in the production of an article. We consider fresh fish to be
an article. Therefore, if imports of that fish or other fish
that were directly competitive contributed importantly to the
decline in the sales or production of the fishing firm and
the loss of jobs of the crew, the group of workers could be
certified for TAA. An owner who works on a fishing vessel
with as few as two crew members would be eligible to initiate
the petition for TAA.
It may also be noted that the Conference Report that is
currently before the Senate expands eligibility for TAA to
cover certain secondary workers, including suppliers of
component parts. In the case of a firm and its fishermen that
provided fresh fish to a company that canned the fish and
sold the canned fish, and imports of that canned fish led to
the workers in the canning company being certified under TAA,
the fishermen who supplied the fish could also be certified
as secondary workers. This would also require that the loss
of business with the canning company constituted at least 20
percent of the fishing firm's sales or contributed
importantly to the loss of the fisherman's jobs.
It is important to recognize, however, that there are
certain limitations on the assistance provided under TAA. One
of the requirements for receiving extended income support
under TAA, in addition to being enrolled in training or
receiving a waiver from that requirement, is that the worker
was eligible for and exhausted regular State unemployment
insurance. Generally, fishermen on vessels of under 10 tons,
and that are not involved in the commercial fishing of salmon
or halibut, are excluded from unemployment insurance
coverage. Therefore, even if certified for TAA benefits, many
fishermen may not qualify for the income support benefit.
Therefore, in some cases, fishermen may be able access to
income support to enable them to participate in training
through WIA formula funded programs, and to the extent

[[Page S7839]]

possible, through a National Emergency Grant awarded in
response to a state application, where eligibility for
unemployment insurance is not necessarily a prerequisite.
I share your concern for all workers who have been laid-off
due to trade or other reasons, and I want to assure you that
my staff will work with you to help respond to layoffs that
may impact fishermen in Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
Emily Stover DeRocco.
____

The Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2002.
Hon. John Kerry,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry, As you are aware, the conference
agreement on H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Expansion
Act is pending before the Senate. This Act includes
provisions important to the Administration on Trade Promotion
Authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
We understand you have concerns regarding the eligibility
of the fishing industry to participate in the TAA programs
for agriculture authorized in the legislation. As well, we
understand the difficult situations that have faced the
fishing industry in your State over the last few years.
There has been precedent for including certain fishing
enterprises in previous USDA disaster programs. As the
Department promulgates the necessary regulations to implement
the new authorities provided in the Act, we would be willing
to carefully examine and discuss with you whether we can
include the fishing industry in the appropriate regulations
on TAA.
Sincerely,
Ann M. Veneman.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

____________________