[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5041-S5047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Allard, and Ms. Collins):
S. 3080. A bill to ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed
on ethanol and tax credits provided on ethanol; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Imported
Ethanol Parity Act of 2008.
This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Cantwell, Allard
and Collins.
First, let me explain what this bill does. The Imported Ethanol
Parity Act instructs the President to lower the ethanol import tariff,
so that it is no higher than the subsidy for blending ethanol into
gasoline.
This legislation is necessary because the Farm Bill extended the
tariff for two more years at $0.54 per gallon, even though the Farm
Bill reduced the ethanol blending subsidy to $0.45 per gallon.
In effect, the Farm Bill has turned the tariff from an ``offset''
into a true trade barrier of at least $0.09 per gallon.
The Ethanol tariff poses many problems.
It increases the cost of Gasoline in the United States by making
ethanol more expensive.
It prevents Americans from importing ethanol made from sugarcane.
Sugar ethanol is the only available transportation fuel that works in
today's cars and emits considerably less lifecycle greenhouse gas than
gasoline;.
It taxes imports from our friends in Brazil, India, and Australia,
while oil and gasoline imports from OPEC enter the United States tax
free.
It hinders the emergence of a global biofuels marketplace through
which countries with a strong biofuel crop could sell fuel to countries
that suffered drought or other agricultural difficulties in the same
crop year. Such a global market would permit mutually beneficial trade
between producing regions and stabilize both fuel and food prices.
It makes us more dependent on the Middle East for fuel when we should
be increasing the number of countries from whom we buy fuel. When it
comes to energy security for the United States, which has less than 3
percent of proven global oil reserves and 25 percent of demand, we must
diversify supply.
Bottom Line: until the tariff is lowered, the United States will tax
the only fuel it can import that increases energy security, reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, and lowers gasoline prices.
In 2006 I introduced legislation to eliminate the ethanol tariff
entirely, and in 2007 I cosponsored an amendment to the Energy Bill
which would have eliminated the tariff.
The Imported Ethanol Parity Act is a different proposal that I
believe addresses the concerns of tariff defenders.
The advocates of the $0.54 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports have
always argued that the tariff is necessary in order to offset the
blender subsidy that applies to the use of all ethanol, whether
produced domestically or internationally. They argue that the ethanol
subsidy exists to support American farmers who produce ethanol at
higher cost than foreign producers.
For instance, on May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee stated on the Senate floor that, ``the U.S. tariff on ethanol
operates as an offset to an excise tax credit that applies to both
domestically produced and imported ethanol.''
On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated in a press
release: ``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax
incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they
blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''
In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the American Coalition
for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn
Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the
National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated
that the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners regardless of
whether the ethanol blended is imported or domestic. To prevent U.S.
taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed
an offset to the tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a
tariff.''
Just this month, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive Director
asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to protect the industry
but the U.S. taxpayer.''
Bottom Line: the tariff cannot be justifiably maintained at $0.54 per
gallon if its intent is to offset a $0.45 per gallon blender subsidy,
and it should be reduced.
Ethanol from Brazil or Australia should not have to overcome a trade
barrier that no drop of OPEC oil must face.
Tariff defenders either should support this legislation or explain
how a tariff can justifiably be higher than the subsidy it is designed
to offset.
Climate Change is the most significant environmental challenge we
face, and I believe that lowering the ethanol tariff will make it less
expensive for the United States to combat global warming.
The fuel we burn to power our cars is a major source of the
greenhouse gas emissions warming our planet. To reduce this impact, we
need to increase the fuel efficiency of our vehicles and lower the
lifecycle carbon emissions of the fuel itself.
For this reason, in March 2007, I introduced the Clean Fuels and
Vehicles Act with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
The legislation proposed a ``Low Carbon Fuels Standard,'' which would
require each major oil company selling gasoline in the United States to
reduce the average lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of
energy in their gasoline by 3 percent by 2015 and by 3 percent more in
2020.
The legislation was modeled on the state of California's Low Carbon
Fuels Standard, which also requires a reduction in the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
This concept became a major aspect of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, in which Congress required oil companies to use
an increasing quantity of ``advanced biofuels'' that produce at least
50 percent less lifecycle greenhouse gas than gasoline.
Unfortunately the ethanol tariff puts a trade barrier in front of the
lowest carbon fuel available, making it considerably more expensive for
the United States to lower the lifecycle carbon emissions of
transportation fuel.
The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary depending on
production methods and feedstocks, and these differences will impact
the degree to which ethanol may be used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel
requirements under California law and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007.
For instance, sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks
as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input compared to
current corn-to-ethanol processes. By comparison, researchers at the
University of California concluded that ``only 5 to 26 percent of the
energy content (in corn ethanol) is renewable. The rest is primarily
natural gas and coal,'' which are used in the production process.
The 2007 California Energy Commission Report entitled Full Fuel Cycle
Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts
[[Page S5042]]
concluded that the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of
imported sugar based ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while
the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol
from the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.
Further research released in 2008 suggests that the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol may be higher than
gasoline, when land use change is factored into the equation.
The bottom line: biofuels that protect our planet may be produced
abroad, and we should not put tariffs in front of these fuels, while we
import crude oil and gasoline tariff free.
Energy and food prices are both rising at unprecedented rates, and
there is a great deal of debate about whether the renewable fuels
standard mandating ethanol use is causing the problem.
I have always opposed corn ethanol mandates. But I remain concerned
that the blending subsidy and the ethanol tariff have as much to do
with rising corn prices as the ethanol mandate.
Corn ethanol production has considerably exceeded the renewable fuels
standard every year since its adoption in 2005. With oil prices this
high, it is profitable to produce ethanol at record corn prices with or
without the mandate. The low value of renewable fuels standard credits,
known as RINs, confirms that using ethanol is not a burden for oil
companies.
To address the rising cost of corn, we have to address the underlying
economics of corn ethanol production, and effectively increasing the
tariff on imports, as the Farm Bill has done, is a step in the wrong
direction.
This legislation corrects the Farm Bill's mistaken policy that
imposed a real trade barrier on clean and climate friendly ethanol
imports, giving gasoline imports a competitive advantage over cleaner
fuel that simply should not exist at a time we are trying to combat
climate change.
It prevents ethanol producers abroad from receiving American ethanol
subsidies, which is supposedly the intent of the ethanol tariff.
I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge Congress to pass
this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3080
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Imported Ethanol Parity
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On May 6, 2006, the Chairman of the Finance Committee
of the Senate stated on the Senate floor that, ``the United
States tariff on ethanol operates as an offset to an excise
tax credit that applies to both domestically produced and
imported ethanol.''.
(2) On May 9, 2006, the Renewable Fuels Association stated:
``the secondary tariff exists as an offset to the tax
incentive gasoline refiners receive for every gallon of
ethanol they blend, regardless of the ethanol's origin.''. In
May 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association's Executive
Director asserted that ``The tariff is there not so much to
protect the industry but the United States taxpayer.''.
(3) In a letter to Congress dated June 20, 2007, the
American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Sorghum
Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association stated that
the ``(blender) tax credit is available to refiners
regardless of whether the ethanol blended is imported or
domestic. To prevent United States taxpayers from subsidizing
foreign ethanol companies, Congress passed an offset to the
tax credit that foreign companies pay in the form of a
tariff.''.
(4) The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, as
contained in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2419 in
the 110th Congress, proposes to decrease the excise tax
credit for blending ethanol from $0.51 to $0.45 per gallon,
but extend the $0.54 per gallon temporary duty on imported
ethanol, increasing the competitive disadvantage of ethanol
imports in the United States marketplace. The legislation
would transform a tariff designed to offset a domestic
subsidy into a real import barrier of at least $0.09 per
gallon.
(5) The State of California is adopting a Low Carbon Fuels
Standard that requires a reduction in the lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels, and the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the
United States to use increasing quantities of ``advanced
biofuels'' that have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that
are at least 50 percent less than lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions from gasoline.
(6) The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol vary
depending on production methods and feedstocks. These
differences will impact the degree to which ethanol may be
used to meet ``low-carbon'' fuel requirements under
California law and the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007.
(7) Sugar cane ethanol plants use biomass from sugar stalks
as process energy, resulting in less fossil fuel input
compared to current corn-to-ethanol processes.
(8) The 2007 California Energy Commission Report, entitled
``Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-to-Wheels Energy Inputs,
Emissions, and Water Impacts'', concluded that the direct
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of imported sugar based
ethanol are 68 percent lower than gasoline, while the direct
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn based ethanol from
the Midwest are 15 to 28 percent lower than gasoline.
(9) The cost to ship ethanol by sea from foreign production
areas to California is competitive with the cost to ship
ethanol by rail from the American Midwest, according to
ethanol producers and importers.
(10) Ethanol production will vary from region to region
each year based on crop performance, and a global biofuels
marketplace would permit mutually beneficial trade between
producing regions capable of stabilizing both fuel and food
prices.
(11) In March 2007, the United States and Brazil entered
into a strategic alliance to cooperate on advanced research
for biofuels, develop biofuel technology, and expand the
production and use of biofuels throughout the Western
Hemisphere, especially in the Caribbean and Central America.
(12) On March 9, 2007, President Bush stated ``it's in the
interest of the United States that there be a prosperous
neighborhood. And one way to help spread prosperity in
Central America is for them to become energy producers.''.
(13) According to a February 2008 study by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, titled ``Biomass to
Ethanol: Potential Production and Environmental Impacts'',
the current ethanol distribution system in the United States
is not capable of efficiently supplying ethanol to the East
Coast markets.
SEC. 3. ETHANOL TAX PARITY.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and semiannually thereafter, the President shall
reduce the temporary duty imposed on ethanol under subheading
9901.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States by an amount equal to the reduction in any Federal
income or excise tax credit under section 40(h), 6426(b), or
6427(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and take any
other action necessary to ensure that the temporary duty
imposed on ethanol under such subheading 9901.00.50 is equal
to, or lower than, any Federal income or excise tax credit
applicable to ethanol under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3081. A bill to establish a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task
Force within the Department of Justice; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, from the skyrocketing price of crude oil,
now hovering well above $120 a barrel, to the $4.00 per gallon being
sold at gas stations across the country, Americans are frustrated and
there appears to be no end in sight.
I've talked to school superintendents who have had to cut academic
programs because the cost of fueling school buses has gone through the
roof. I have met with constituents who are pleading for the Federal
Government to take some kind of action to provide relief. Just last
week, I held a field hearing in Pittsfield, Massachusetts to examine
how gas prices were impacting small business owners, and the testimony
was striking. Businesses that have been sustainable for decades are now
wondering whether they'll be forced to shut their doors for good.
Congress has received testimony from energy market experts and major
oil company executives that the price of oil and gas can no longer be
explained or predicted by normal market dynamics or their historic
understanding of supply and demand forces. An executive from Exxon
Mobil recently testified before Congress under oath that the price of
crude oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel based on the supply and
demand fundamentals he had observed. Yet current crude oil prices are
more than double that.
We are all owed a clearer understanding as to why prices are so
disconnected from what normal supply and demand would indicate. Why has
the price of oil nearly doubled in the last year? Prices should not
skyrocket like this in a properly functioning, competitive market.
Twice I have written to
[[Page S5043]]
the Bush Administration demanding an investigation and twice I have
received a response of ``we're working on it''. Well, this response
rings awfully hollow to Americans struggling to understand what's going
on.
How the Federal Government responds to the changing dynamics of
energy markets is vital to our continued national and economic
security. If the Enron energy crisis taught us anything it is that
consumers are best protected when energy markets are subject to
aggressive oversight and enforcement. Unless there is a cop on the beat
vigilantly policing energy markets--especially when supplies are tight
in markets with extremely inelastic demand--sophisticated companies can
fleece consumer pocketbooks without fear of penalty.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to establish a new
interagency Oil and Gas Market Fraud Task Force under the leadership of
the Department of Justice to ensure that energy markets are free from
illegal market manipulation or corporate corruption. This legislation
will allow us to root out fraud and manipulation in all corners of the
oil and gas marketplace, and restore consumer confidence. When that
happens, everyone wins. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself and Mr. Bond):
S. 3082. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City, Missouri, as
the ``Reverend Earl Abel Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, when I was a local elected official in
Kansas City, MO, I had the distinct honor of getting to know many of
the dedicated community leaders whose sole purpose for being involved
was to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. One of the best and
most beloved of these leaders was the Reverend Earl Abel.
Reverend Abel was born on September 12, 1930. He attended University
of Kansas and went on to receive his Doctor of Divinity Degree from
Western Baptist Bible College. Reverend Abel worked as a U.S. Postal
Service mail carrier until he organized the Palestine Missionary
Baptist Church in 1959.
Under Reverend Abel's leadership, what started out as a modest church
of 11 members grew into a thriving ministry, touching the lives of
thousands of community members across Kansas City, Missouri. While he
was pastor, Palestine Church built two senior citizens residences, a
Senior Activity Center, and a church camp for both youth and adults.
Even as he worked tirelessly to reach out through these programs,
Reverend Abel's involvement in the community did not end with his
efforts at Palestine Church. Reverend Abel served as Chaplain for the
Kansas City Police Department, President of the Baptist Ministers
Union, member of the Kansas City Council on Crime Prevention, and
authored a book entitled If a Church is to Grow. In 1999, Missouri
Governor Mel Carnahan appointed Reverend Abel to the Appellate Judicial
Commission.
On May 17, 2005, Reverend Abel passed away after 46 years of service
at Palestine Missionary Baptist Church of Jesus Christ and more than 48
years as a minister of God.
Today I rise to offer a bill to honor this man by naming a post
office facility in Kansas City after him. Given his early career as a
mail carrier, it is only fitting for the location at 1700 Cleveland
Avenue, in the heart of Kansas City, to carry his name. It is my hope
that this small gesture helps ensure that the legacy of Rev. Abel lives
on. A companion bill in the House of Representatives will be filed
today by Rep. Cleaver, a fellow minister and selfless public servant
who represents Kansas City.
I hope my fellow colleagues will join me and my colleague Senator
Bond in recognizing Reverend Earl Abel for his loving ministry and
limitless dedication to serving the Kansas City, MO, community.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3082
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVEREND EARL ABEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in Kansas City,
Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Reverend
Earl Abel Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Reverend Earl Abel Post Office
Building''.
______
By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Casey,
and Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3083. A bill to require a review of existing trade agreements and
renegotiation of existing trade agreements based on the review, to set
terms for future trade agreements, to express the sense of the Senate
that the role of Congress in trade policymaking should be strengthened,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the goal of our trade policy should be to
promote fair competition and lift up workers at home and abroad.
Americans support trade that allows responsible businesses to thrive,
fueling good-paying jobs and a strong, resilient economy.
But wrong-headed trade pacts following the failed NAFTA-model have
betrayed middle class families across the country, destabilizing our
economy and destroying communities in rural and urban areas alike.
In my state of Ohio, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been
eliminated since 2001. Across the country, more than 3 million
manufacturing jobs have been eliminated in that time.
Our failures to modernize our Nation's trade policy, to learn from
our mistakes, and to respond to changing dynamics in the global arena,
hurt communities like Toledo and Steubenville and Dayton.
That is why voters in my state of Ohio and across the country have
sent a message loud and clear demanding a new direction, a very
different direction, for our nation's trade policy.
Over the last 8 years, our approach to trade has been haphazard at
best.
In the last 2 years, since voters elected candidates who support fair
trade, Congress has reasserted itself in trade policy-making, with some
improvements to proposed deals with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South
Korea.
We also have chosen not to grant President Bush a renewal of Fast
Track.
But our approach to trade has not evolved from reactive to proactive.
We have not forged a new approach to trade that is results-oriented, an
approach focused squarely on the goals of economic strength, job
creation, and U.S. self-sufficiency.
Not surprisingly, polls show that Americans reject current trade
policy as misguided.
That is because it is.
It is time to learn from our mistakes.
It is time for a change. The Trade Reform, Accountability,
Development and Employment, TRADE, Act, which Senator Dorgan, Senator
Feingold, Senator Casey, Senator Whitehouse and I are introducing
today, is a step towards that change.
This legislation will serve as a template for how to craft a trade
agreement that works for workers, for business owners, for our country.
This legislation will mandate a review of all existing trade
agreements and will require the President to submit renegotiation plans
for those agreements before pursuing new trade agreements.
The TRADE Act will create a committee comprised of House and Senate
leaders who will review the President's plan for renegotiation.
This bill spells out standards for future trade agreements, standards
based on fostering fair competition, promoting good-paying jobs, and
addressing unethical behavior by multinational corporations, including
the exploitation of people and natural resources in developing nations.
Trade is an exchange that relies on the integrity of its
participants. We must not trade away our fundamental belief in basic
human rights and our responsibility to fight the kind of exploitation
that threatens vulnerable peoples and vulnerable nations.
[[Page S5044]]
That is why our trade policy must not sidestep the impact of lax
trade agreements and unethical corporations on developing nations.
The TRADE Act also sets out criteria for a new negotiating process--
one that would do away with the fundamentally-flawed Fast Track process
and return power to Congress when considering our nation's trade pacts.
We take for granted our clean air, safe food, and safe drinking
water. But these blessings are not by chance: they result from laws and
rules that foster fair wages, protect the public health, and promote
environmental stewardship.
Flawed trade policy accelerates the import of toxic toys,
contaminated toothpaste, and poisonous pet food into this country.
It does not have to be this way.
We have a choice.
We can continue a race to the bottom in wages, worker safety,
environmental protection, and health standards.
Or, we can use trade agreements to lift standards abroad--not
threaten workers and consumers.
We can continue down the path of the failed NAFTA model, or we can
write trade agreements that sustain and grow our Nation's manufacturing
self-sufficiency, create good-paying jobs and reduce the trade deficit
by providing fair and transparent market access.
We can forsake U.S. standards and U.S. values and ignore trade abuses
in order to mass produce trade agreements, or we can write trade
agreements that fulfill their promises, that hold our trading partners
accountable for abiding by the rules, and that build on the hard-fought
battles waged to build a strong middle class, reward good corporate
citizens, preserve our natural resources, and ensure that the food and
products Americans purchase are safe.
We can continue to use trade deals to lock in protections for Wall
Street, the drug companies, and oil companies, or we can create a
predictable structure for international trade without providing
corporations with overreaching privileges and rights of private
enforcement that undermine our laws.
Middle class families, American manufacturers and farmers, and
community leaders across the country all know that we need a new
direction for trade.
I am going to ask my leadership, and my caucus, to work with me on
this legislation. And I look forward to working with my allies on the
other side of the aisle to modernize U.S. trade policy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3083
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Reform,
Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2008'' or
the ``TRADE Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Core labor standards.--The term ``core labor
standards'' means the core labor rights as stated in the
International Labour Organization conventions dealing with--
(A) freedom of association and the effective recognition of
the right to collective bargaining;
(B) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory
labor;
(C) the effective abolition of child labor; and
(D) the elimination of discrimination with respect to
employment and occupation.
(2) Multilateral environmental agreements.--The term
``multilateral environmental agreements'' means any
international agreement or provision thereof to which the
United States is a party and which is intended to protect, or
has the effect of protecting, the environment or human
health.
(3) Trade agreements.--
(A) In general.--The term ``trade agreement'' includes the
following:
(i) The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
(ii) The United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
(iii) The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
(iv) The United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act.
(v) The North American Free Trade Agreement.
(vi) The Agreement between the United States of America and
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the Establishment of a
Free Trade Area.
(vii) The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
(viii) The United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act.
(ix) The United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act.
(x) The Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area
between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of Israel.
(xi) The United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.
(B) Uruguay round agreements.--The term ``trade agreement''
includes the following Uruguay Round Agreements:
(i) The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994)
annexed to the WTO Agreement.
(ii) The WTO Agreement described in section 2(9) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(9)).
(iii) The agreements described in section 101(d) of the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)).
(iv) Any multilateral agreement entered into by the United
States under the auspices of the World Trade Organization
dealing with information technology, telecommunications, or
financial services.
SEC. 3. REVIEW AND REPORT ON EXISTING TRADE AGREEMENTS.
(a) Review and Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2010, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
review of all trade agreements described in section 2(3) and
submit to the Congressional Trade Agreement Review Committee
established under section 6 a report that includes the
information described under subsections (b) and (c) and the
recommendations required under subsection (d). The review
shall concentrate on the effective operation of the United
States trade agreements program generally.
(2) Cooperation of agencies.--The Department of State, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, the
United States Trade Representative, and other executive
departments and agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General and the Government Accountability Office in providing
access to United States Government officials and documents to
facilitate preparation of the report.
(b) Information With Respect to Trade Agreements.--The
report required by subsection (a) shall, with respect to each
trade agreement described in section 2(3), to the extent
practical, include the following information covering the
period between the date on which the agreement entered into
force with respect to the United States and the date on which
the Comptroller General completes the review:
(1) An analysis of indicators of the economic impact of
each trade agreement, such as--
(A) the dollar value of goods exported from the United
States and imported into the United States by sector and
year;
(B) the employment effects of the agreement on job gains
and losses in the United States by sector and changes in wage
levels in the United States in dollars by sector and year;
and
(C) the rate of production, number of employees, and
competitive position of industries in the United States
significantly affected by the agreement.
(2) A trend analysis of wage levels on a year-to-year basis
in--
(A) each country with which the United States has a trade
agreement described in section 2(3)(A);
(B) each country that is a major United States trading
partner, including Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany,
Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea,
Malaysia, Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom;
(C) each country with which the United States has
considered establishing a free trade agreement, including
South Africa and Thailand;
(D) each country with respect to which the United States
has extended preferential trade treatment under the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and the
Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).
(3) The effect on agriculture, including--
(A) the trend of prices in the United States for
agricultural commodities and food products that are imported
into the United States from a country that is a party to an
agreement described in section 2(3);
(B) an analysis of the effects, if any, on the cost of farm
programs in the United States; and
(C) the number of farms operating in the United States and
the number of acres under production for agricultural
commodities that are exported from the United States to a
country that is a party to such an agreement on a year-by-
year basis.
(4) An analysis of the progress in implementing trade
agreement commitments and the record of compliance with the
terms of each agreement in effect between the United States
and a country listed in paragraph (2).
(5) A description of any outstanding disputes between the
United States and any country that is a party to an agreement
listed in section 2(3), including a description of laws,
regulations, or policies of the United States or any State
that any country that is a party to such an agreement has
challenged,
[[Page S5045]]
or threatened to challenge, under such agreement.
(6) An analysis of the ability of the United States to
ensure that any country with which the United States has a
trade agreement described in section 2(3) complies with
United States laws and regulations, including--
(A) complying with the customs laws of the United States;
(B) making timely payment of duties owed on goods imported
into the United States;
(C) meeting safety and inspection requirements with respect
to food and other products imported into the United States;
and
(D) complying with prohibitions on the transshipment of
goods that are ultimately imported into the United States.
(7) A analysis of any privatization of public sector
services in the United States or in any country that is a
party to the an agreement listed in section 2(3), including
any effect such privatization has on the access of consumers
to essential services, such as health care, electricity, gas,
water, telephone service, or other utilities.
(8) An assessment of the impact of the intellectual
property provisions of the trade agreements listed in section
2(3) on access to medicines.
(9) An analysis of contracts for the procurement of goods
or services by Federal or State government agencies from
persons operating in any country that is a party to an
agreement listed in section 2(3).
(10) An assessment of the consequences of significant
currency movements and a determination of whether the
currency of a country that is a party to an agreement is
misaligned deliberately to promote a competitive advantage in
international trade for that country.
(c) Information on Countries That Are Parties to Trade
Agreements.--With respect to each country with respect to
which the United States has a trade agreement in effect, the
report required under subsection (a) shall include
information regarding whether that country--
(1) has a democratic form of government;
(2) respects core labor standards, as defined by the
Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the
Application of Standards of the International Labour
Organization;
(3) respects fundamental human rights, as determined by the
Secretary of State in the annual country reports on human
rights of the Department of State;
(4) is designated as a country of particular concern with
respect to religious freedom under section 402(b)(1) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6442(b)(1));
(5) is on a list described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 110(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7107(b)(1)) (commonly known as tier 2 or
tier 3 of the Trafficking in Persons List of the Department
of State);
(6) has taken effective measures to combat and prevent
public and private corruption, including measures with
respect to tax evasion and money laundering;
(7) complies with the multilateral environmental agreements
to which the country is a party;
(8) has in force adequate labor and environmental laws and
regulations, has devoted sufficient resources to implementing
such laws and regulations, and has an adequate record of
enforcement of such law and regulations;
(9) adequately protects intellectual property rights;
(10) provides for governmental transparency, due process of
law, and respect for international agreements;
(11) provides procedures to promote basic democratic
rights, including the right to hold clear title to property
and the right to a free press; and
(12) poses potential concerns to the national security of
the United States, including an assessment of transfer of
technology, production, and services from one country to
another.
(d) Recommendations.--Each report required under subsection
(a) shall include recommendations of the Comptroller General
for addressing the problems with respect to an agreement
identified under subsections (b) and (c). The recommendations
shall include suggestions for renegotiating the agreement
based on the requirements described in section 4(b) and for
negotiations with respect to new trade agreements.
(e) Citations.--The Comptroller General shall include in
the report required under subsection (a) citations to the
sources of data used in preparing the report and a
description of the methodologies employed in preparing the
report.
(f) Public Comment.--In preparing each report required
under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall--
(1) hold at least 2 hearings that are open to the public;
and
(2) provide an opportunity for members of the public to
testify and submit written comments.
(g) Public Availability.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall be made available to the public not
later than 14 days after the Comptroller General completes
that report.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 151 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191) or any other provision of law,
any bill implementing a trade agreement between the United
States and another country that is introduced in Congress
after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be subject
to a point of order pursuant to subsection (c) unless the
trade agreement meets the requirements described in
subsection (b).
(b) Requirements.--Each trade agreement negotiated between
the United States and another country shall meet the
following requirements:
(1) Labor standards.--The labor provisions shall--
(A) be included in the text of the agreement;
(B) require that a country that is party to the agreement
adopt and maintain as part of its domestic law and
regulations (including in any designated zone in that
country), the core labor standards and effectively enforce
laws directly related to those standards and to acceptable
conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of
work, and occupational safety and health;
(C) prohibit a country that is a party to the agreement
from waiving or otherwise derogating from its laws and
regulations relating to the core labor standards and
acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages,
hours of work, and occupational safety and health;
(D) require each country that is a party to the agreement
to adopt into domestic law and enforce effectively core labor
standards;
(E) provide that failures to meet the labor standards
required by the agreement shall be subject to dispute
resolution and enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are
at least as effective as the mechanisms and penalties that
apply to the commercial provisions of the agreement;
(F) strengthen the capacity of each country that is a party
to the agreement to promote and enforce core labor standards;
and
(G) establish a commission of independent experts who shall
receive, review, and adjudicate any complaint filed under the
labor provisions of the trade agreement, and vest the
commission with the authority to establish objective
indicators to determine compliance with the obligations set
forth in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F).
(2) Environmental and public safety standards.--The
environmental provisions shall--
(A) be included in the text of the agreement;
(B) prohibit each country that is a party to the agreement
from weakening, eliminating, or failing to enforce domestic
environmental or other public safety standards to promote
trade or attract investment;
(C) require each such country to implement and enforce
fully and effectively, including through domestic law, the
country's obligations under multilateral environmental
agreements and provide for the enforcement of such
obligations under the agreement;
(D) prohibit the trade of products that are illegally
harvested or extracted and the trade of goods derived from
illegally harvested or extracted natural resources, including
timber and timber products, fish, wildlife, and associated
products, mineral resources, or other environmentally
sensitive goods;
(E) provide that the failure to meet the environmental
standards required by the agreement be subject to dispute
resolution and enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are
at least as effective as the mechanisms and penalties that
apply to the commercial provisions of the agreement; and
(F) allow each country that is a party to the agreement to
adopt and implement environmental, health, and safety
standards, recognizing the legitimate right of governments to
protect the environment and public health and safety.
(3) Food and product health and safety standards.--If the
agreement contains health and safety standards for food and
other products, the agreement shall--
(A) establish that food, feed, food ingredients, and other
related food products may be imported into the United States
from a country that is a party to the agreement only if such
products meet or exceed United States standards with respect
to food safety, pesticides, inspections, packaging, and
labeling;
(B) establish that nonfood products may be imported into
the United States from a country that is a party to the
agreement only if such products meet or exceed United States
health and safety standards with respect to health and
safety, inspection, packaging and labeling;
(C) allow each country that is a party to the agreement to
impose standards designed to protect public health and safety
unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such standards do
not protect the public health or safety;
(D) authorize the Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration (in this Act, referred to as the
``Commissioner'') and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(in this Act, referred to as the ``Commission'') to assess
the regulatory system of each country that is a party to the
agreement to determine whether the system provides the same
or better protection of health and safety for food and other
products as provided under the regulatory system of the
United States;
(E) if the Commissioner or the Commission determines that
the regulatory system of
[[Page S5046]]
such a country does not provide the same or better protection
of health and safety for food and other products as provided
under the regulatory system of the United States, prohibit
the importation into the United States of food and other
products from that country;
(F) provide a process by which producers from countries
whose standards are not found by the Commissioner or the
Commission to meet United States standards may have their
facilities inspected and certified in order to allow products
from approved facilities to be imported into the United
States;
(G) if harmonization of food or product health or safety
standards is necessary to facilitate trade, such
harmonization shall be based on standards that are no less
stringent than United States standards; and
(H) establish mandatory end-use labeling of imports of milk
protein concentrates.
(4) Services provisions.--If the agreement contains
provisions related to the provision of services, such
provisions shall--
(A) preserve the right of Federal, State, and local
governments to maintain essential public services and to
regulate, for the benefit of the public, services provided to
consumers in the United States by establishing a general
exception to the national treatment commitments in the
agreement that allows distinctions between United States and
foreign service providers and qualifications or limitations
on the provision of services;
(B)(i) require each country that is a party to the
agreement to establish a list of each service sector that
will be subject to the obligations of the country under the
agreement; and
(ii) apply the agreement only to the service sectors that
are on the list described in clause (i);
(C) establish a general exception to market access
obligations that allows a country that is a party to the
agreement to maintain or establish a ban on services the
country considers harmful, if the ban is applied to domestic
and foreign services and service providers alike;
(D) require service providers in any country that is a
party to the agreement that provide services to consumers in
the United States to comply with United States privacy,
transparency, professional qualification, and consumer access
laws and regulations;
(E) require that services provided to consumers in the
United States that are subject to privacy laws and
regulations in the United States may only be provided by
service providers in other countries that provide privacy
protections and protections for confidential information that
are equal to or exceed the protections provided by United
States privacy laws and regulations;
(F) require that financial and medical services be subject
to United States privacy laws and be performed only in
countries that provide protections for confidential
information that are equal to or exceed the protections for
such information under United States privacy laws;
(G) not require the privatization of public services in any
country that is a party to the agreement, including services
related to national security, social security, health, public
safety, education, water, sanitation, other utilities, ports,
or transportation; and
(H) provide for local governments to operate without being
subject to market access obligations under the agreement.
(5) Investment provisions.--If the agreement contains
provisions related to investment, such provisions shall--
(A) preserve the ability of each country that is a party to
the agreement to regulate foreign investment in a manner
consistent with the needs and priorities of the country;
(B) allow each such country to place reasonable
restrictions on speculative capital to reduce global
financial instability and trade volatility;
(C) not be subject to an investor-state dispute settlement
mechanism under the agreement;
(D) ensure that foreign investors operating in the United
States have rights no greater than the rights provided to
domestic investors by the Constitution of the United States;
(E) provide for government-to-government dispute resolution
relating to a government action that destroys all value of
the real property of a foreign investor rather than dispute
resolution between the government that took the action and
the foreign investor;
(F) define the term ``investment'' to mean not more than a
commitment of capital or acquisition of real property and not
to include assumption of risk or expectation of gain or
profit;
(G) define the term ``investor'' to mean only a person who
makes a commitment or acquisition described in subparagraph
(F);
(H) define the term ``direct expropriation'' as government
action that does not merely diminish the value of property
but destroys all value of the property permanently;
(I) not provide a dispute resolution system under the
agreement for the enforcement of contracts between foreign
investors and the government of a country that is a party to
the agreement relating to natural resources, public works, or
other activities under government control; and
(J) define the standard of minimum treatment to provide no
greater legal rights than United States citizens possess
under the due process clause of section 1 of the 14th
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(6) Procurement standards.--If the agreement contains
government procurement provisions, such provisions shall--
(A) require each country that is a party to the agreement
to establish a list of industry sectors, goods, or services
that will be subject to the national treatment and other
obligations of the country under the agreement;
(B) with respect to the United States, apply only to State
and local governments that specifically agree to the
agreement and only to the industry sectors, goods, or
services specifically identified by the State government and
not apply to local governments; and
(C) include only technical specifications for goods or
services, or supplier qualifications or other conditions for
receiving government contracts that do not undermine--
(i) prevailing wage policies;
(ii) recycled content policies;
(iii) sustainable harvest policies;
(iv) renewable energy policies;
(v) human rights; or
(vi) labor project agreements.
(7) Intellectual property requirements.--If the agreement
contains provisions related to the protection of intellectual
property rights, such provisions shall--
(A) promote adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property rights;
(B) include only terms relating to patents that do not,
overtly or in application, limit the flexibilities and rights
established in the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health, adopted by the World Trade Organization at the
Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14,
2001; and
(C) require that any provisions relating to the patenting
of traditional knowledge be consistent with the Convention on
Biological Diversity, concluded at Rio de Janeiro June 5,
1992.
(8) Agricultural standards.--If the agreement contains
provisions related to agriculture, such provisions shall--
(A) protect the right of each such country to establish
policies with respect to food and agriculture that require
farmers to receive fair remuneration for management and labor
that occurs on farms and that allow for inventory management
and strategic food and renewable energy reserves, to the
extent that such policies do not contribute to or allow the
dumping of agricultural commodities in world markets at
prices lower than the cost of production;
(B) protect the right of each country that is a party to
the agreement to prevent dumping of agricultural commodities
at below the cost of production through border regulations or
other mechanisms and policies;
(C) ensure that all laws relating to antitrust and anti-
competitive business practices remain fully in effect, and
that their enforceability is neither pre-empted nor
compromised in any manner;
(D) ensure adequate supplies of safe food for consumers;
(E) protect the right of each country that is a party to
the agreement to encourage conservation through the use of
best practices with respect to the management and production
of crops; and
(F) ensure fair treatment of farm laborers in each such
country.
(9) Trade remedies and safeguards.--If the agreement
contains trade remedy provisions, such provisions shall--
(A) preserve fully the ability of the United States to
enforce its trade laws, including antidumping and
countervailing duty laws and safeguard laws;
(B) ensure the continued effectiveness of domestic and
international prohibitions on unfair trade, especially
prohibitions on dumping and subsidies, and domestic and
international safeguard provisions;
(C) allow the United States to maintain adequate safeguards
to ensure that surges of imported goods do not result in
economic burdens on workers, firms, or farmers in the United
States, including providing that such safeguards go into
effect automatically based on certain criteria; and
(D) if the currency of a country that is a party to the
agreement is deliberately misaligned, establish safeguard
remedies that apply automatically to offset substantial and
sustained currency movements.
(10) Rules of origin provisions.--If the agreement contains
provisions related to rules of origin, such provisions
shall--
(A) ensure, to the fullest extent practicable, that goods
receiving preferential treatment under the agreement are
produced using inputs from a country that is a party to the
agreement; and
(B) ensure the effective enforcement of such provisions.
(11) Dispute resolution and enforcement provisions.--If the
agreement contains provisions related to dispute resolution,
such provisions shall--
(A) incorporate the basic due process guarantees protected
by the Constitution of the United States, including access to
documents, open hearings, and conflict of interest rules for
judges;
(B) require that any dispute settlement panel, including an
appellate panel, dealing with intellectual property rights or
environmental, health, labor, and other public law issues
include panelists with expertise in such issues; and
(C) provide that dispute resolution proceedings are open to
the public and provide
[[Page S5047]]
timely public access to information regarding enforcement,
disputes, and ongoing negotiations related to disputes.
(12) Technical assistance.--If the agreement contains
technical assistance provisions, such provisions shall--
(A) be designed to raise standards in developing countries
by providing assistance that ensures respect for diversity of
development paths;
(B) be designed to empower civil society and democratic
governments to create sustainable, vibrant economies and
respect basic rights;
(C) provide that technical assistance shall not supplant
economic assistance; and
(D) promote the exportation of goods produced with methods
that support sustainable natural resources.
(13) Exceptions for national security and other reasons.--
Each agreement shall--
(A) include an essential security exception that permits a
country that is a party to the agreement to apply measures
that the country considers necessary for the maintenance or
restoration of international peace or security, or the
protection of its own essential security interests, including
regarding infrastructure, services, manufacturing, and other
sectors; and
(B) include in its list of general exceptions the following
language: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this
agreement, a provision of law that is nondiscriminatory on
its face and relates to domestic health, consumer safety, the
environment, labor rights, worker health and safety, economic
equity, consumer access, the provision of goods or services,
or investment, shall not be subject to challenge under the
dispute resolution mechanism established under this
agreement, unless the primary purpose of the law is to
discriminate with respect to market access.''.
(14) Federalism.--The agreement may only require a State
government to comply with procurement, investment, or
services provisions contained in the agreement if the State
government has been consulted in full and has given explicit
consent to be bound by such provisions.
(c) Point of Order in Senate.--The Senate shall cease
consideration of a bill to implement a trade agreement if--
(1) a point of order is made by any Senator against the
bill based on the noncompliance of the trade agreement with
the requirements of subsection (b); and
(2) the point of order is sustained by the Presiding
Officer.
(d) Waivers and Appeals.--
(1) Waivers.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a point
of order described in subsection (c), any Senator may move to
waive the point of order and the motion to waive shall not be
subject to amendment. A point of order described in
subsection (c) is waived only by the affirmative vote of 60
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeals.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a point
of order described in subsection (c), any Senator may appeal
the ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of order as
it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the
Presiding Officer ruled. A ruling of the Presiding Officer on
a point of order described in subsection (c) is sustained
unless 60 Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, vote
not to sustain the ruling.
(3) Debate.--Debate on the motion to waive under paragraph
(1) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding Officer
under paragraph (2) shall be limited to 1 hour. The time
shall be equally divided between, and controlled by, the
majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate, or
their designees.
SEC. 5. RENEGOTIATION PLAN FOR EXISTING TRADE AGREEMENTS.
The President shall submit to Congress a plan to bring
trade agreements in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act into compliance with the requirements of section
4(b) not later than 90 days before the earlier of the day on
which the President--
(1) initiates negotiations with a foreign country with
respect to a new trade agreement; or
(2) submits a bill to Congress to implement a trade
agreement.
SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL TRADE AGREEMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Congressional
Trade Agreement Review Committee.
(b) Functions.--The Committee--
(1) shall receive the report of the Comptroller General of
the United States required under section 3;
(2) shall review the plan for bringing trade agreements
into compliance with the requirements of section 4(b); and
(3) may, not later than 60 days after receiving the plan
described in paragraph (2), add items for renegotiation to
the plan, reject recommendations in the plan, or otherwise
amend the plan by a vote of \2/3\ of the members of the
Committee.
(c) Appointment and Membership.--The Committee shall be
composed of the chairman and ranking members of the
following:
(1) The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate.
(3) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate.
(4) The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
(5) The Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate.
(6) The Committee on Finance of the Senate.
(7) The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(8) The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate.
(9) The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
(10) The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
of the Senate.
(11) The Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives.
(12) The Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives.
(13) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
(14) The Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives.
(15) The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.
(16) The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
(17) The Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(18) The Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(19) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(20) The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING READINESS CRITERIA AND
IMPROVING THE PROCESS FOR UNITED STATES TRADE
NEGOTIATIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that if Congress considers
legislation to provide for special procedures for the
consideration of bills to implement trade agreements, that
legislation shall include--
(1) criteria for the President to use in determining
whether a country--
(A) is able to meet its obligations under a trade
agreement;
(B) meets the requirements described in section 3(c); and
(C) is an appropriate country with which to enter into a
trade agreement;
(2) a process by which the Committee on Finance of the
Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives review the determination of the President
described in paragraph (1) to verify that the country meets
the criteria;
(3) requirements for consultation with Congress during
trade negotiations that require more frequent consultations
than required by the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act
of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), including a process for
consultation with any committee of Congress with jurisdiction
over any area covered by the negotiations;
(4) binding negotiating objectives and requirements
outlining what must and must not be included in a trade
agreement, including the requirements described in section
4(b);
(5) a process for review and certification by Congress to
ensure that the negotiating objectives described in paragraph
(4) have been met during the negotiations;
(6) a process--
(A) by which a State may give informed consent to be bound
by nontariff provisions in a trade agreement that relate to
investment, the service sector, and procurement; and
(B) that prevents a State from being bound by the
provisions described in subparagraph (A) if the State has not
consented; and
(7) a requirement that a trade agreement be approved by a
majority vote in both Houses of Congress before the President
may sign the agreement.
____________________