[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15614-15638]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           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

[[Page 15615]]

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 
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.

[[Page 15616]]

  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 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.

[[Page 15617]]

  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 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

[[Page 15618]]

     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 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.

[[Page 15619]]

       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 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.

[[Page 15620]]

       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 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

[[Page 15621]]

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 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

[[Page 15622]]

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 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 note 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

[[Page 15623]]

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 percent 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 percent to 18 percent 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 percent 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 8-year drought in 
trade promotion authority. I remember well the meeting that the 
President convened in the 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, Bilirakis, 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 Utahan 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--know 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

[[Page 15624]]

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 now 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 accompanied 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 conference 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.
  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

[[Page 15625]]

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 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

[[Page 15626]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15627]]

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 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.

[[Page 15628]]

  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 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

[[Page 15629]]

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, 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,

[[Page 15630]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 15631]]

  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 
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

[[Page 15632]]

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 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

[[Page 15633]]

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 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,

[[Page 15634]]

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.
  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

[[Page 15635]]

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 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

[[Page 15636]]

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 
     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

[[Page 15637]]

     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.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my full support 
for the conference report on H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference 
Expansion Act.
  H.R. 3009 is by far the most comprehensive trade legislation to come 
before Congress in fourteen years. By passing this bill, we 
accomplished four key goals: granting the President Trade Promotion 
Authority for the first time in 8 years; dramatically enhancing Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for displaced workers; renewing and expanding the 
Andean Trade Preference Act to provide legitimate export opportunities 
to Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, and; extending for 5 years the 
Generalized System of Preferences providing tariff cuts for over 100 
developing countries.
  I support all four of these goals, and I voted enthusiastically in 
favor of this bill. I am particularly pleased that the enhancement of 
the Andean Trade Preference Act is the underlying bill for this 
important legislation. This issue has been of great personal importance 
to me.
  When the Senate was considering its version of Andean legislation in 
May, we heard time and again about the success of new, legitimate, 
exports from the region like cut flowers and asparagus.
  Since December 4 of last year, when the original ATPA legislation 
expired, these and many other legitimate exports from the region have 
been subjected to substantially higher tariffs. These higher tariffs 
hit the fresh cut flower sector particularly hard as higher tariffs 
impacted peak sales periods for the Valentine's Day and Mother's Day 
holidays.
  This legislation will return trade benefits to all of those products 
previously covered by ATPA and, most importantly, this legislation has 
been made retroactive to December 4, so that any duties that were paid 
during the lapse of ATPA will be refunded.
  I am pleased that the conference report is not simply a renewal of 
ATPA, but includes enhanced benefits for new products. Times, and our 
trade policy in the region, have changed since 1991 when the original 
ATPA legislation passed. Most notably, the passage in 2000 of the 
Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act provided enhanced trade benefits 
to Caribbean countries, but inadvertently disadvantaged imports from 
the Andean region.
  Nowhere else was this more critical than in apparel assembly where 
some 100,000 jobs in Colombia alone were at risk of being relocated to 
CBI countries. Under the enhanced ATPA program in the conference 
report, the Andean countries will now be competitive suppliers in the 
region. And this new ATPA benefit will also benefit U.S. producers of 
textile, yarn and cotton by making these U.S.-produced components more 
competitive with Asian goods. In fact, the U.S. apparel importers 
predict that the ATPA provisions in this bill will lead to over $1 
billion in new orders. The next time ATPA is debated in this chamber, I 
look forward to hearing floor statements that show that this projection 
has come true. I also hope to hear of new successes from increased 
exports in footwear, watches, tuna, and other new products afforded 
ATPA benefits under this legislation.
  Enhanced trade benefits in the apparel sector should, in my view, be 
the new norm in the Western Hemisphere. I continue to be concerned 
about the demise of the Multi-Fiber Agreement in 2005 and the effect 
the end of this agreement will have on U.S.-Caribbean and Andean 
apparel assembly partnerships. If we want a competitive apparel 
industry in the Western Hemisphere post-2005, we must be developing 
greater efficiency in the region now.
  Secretary of Commerce Don Evans has been leading this effort for the 
Administration, and the Commerce Department has developed a Western 
Hemisphere action plan to enhance post-2005 competitiveness in the 
region. I will be writing to Mr. Evans shortly to encourage a similar 
initiative for the Andean region.
  I also want to say a few words about two other key parts of this 
trade bill--Trade Promotion Authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance. 
It has been eight long years since Trade Promotion Authority expired. 
In my view, that is far too long for the United States to be sitting on 
the sidelines while other countries are aggressively negotiating trade 
agreements. With Trade Promotion Authority, the Congress and the 
President will be speaking with a unified voice during negotiations.
  TPA will strengthen the United States' negotiating position in 
ongoing Doha Round of negotiations in the World Trade Organization and 
will provide much needed momentum for the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas negotiations. With TPA, USTR will be able to close 
negotiations on bilateral agreements with Chile and Singapore with the 
confidence that Congress will consider the agreements as negotiated.
  I am pleased that the conference report retained a number of 
provisions that will help to ensure that import-sensitive agriculture 
products, such as citrus from my state, will be given an increased 
level of attention during trade negotiations. I believe these 
provisions are necessary to help rebuild consensus in support of trade 
within the agriculture sector. TPA can also help our citrus growers 
gain market access in Europe and elsewhere around the world, if we 
achieve our goals in the WTO agriculture negotiations.
  Of course, TPA is only the first step toward trade negotiations. 
Whether or not we are successful in achieving our negotiating 
objectives will depend on close cooperation between the Congress and 
the administration. I look forward to working with the Administration 
on this effort.
  The final comment I will make is on Trade Adjustment Assistance. I am 
pleased that Members of Congress were able to work together in a truly 
bipartisan fashion to address the health care needs of American workers 
adversely affected by foreign trade agreements. This trade legislation 
will nearly triple the existing Trade Adjustment Assistance program by 
providing new and more comprehensive coverage options. These new 
benefits will provide critical assistance to the over 2,000 Floridians 
who presently receive Trade Adjustment Assistance, particularly those 
from the apparel and electronics sectors where job losses have been 
most severe.
  For the first time, displaced workers will be eligible for a 65 
percent advanceable, refundable tax credit that can be used to pay for 
COBRA or other state continuation plans. Health benefits will also be 
available to individuals who work for businesses that supply or 
contract with firms affected by trade. This comprehensive legislation 
represents a critical step towards our overall goal of lowering the 
number of uninsured, and I applaud my colleagues who supported it.
  I was pleased to vote for the comprehensive trade legislation 
encompassed by H.R. 3009. Passage of this bill was a major 
accomplishment of this Congress and proof that the Congress can work 
together in a spirit of bipartisanship. I am excited about the 
opportunities I believe this legislation

[[Page 15638]]

brings to not only our country, but to the rest of the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________