[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24132-24136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2004--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1047, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report accompanying the bill (H.R. 1047) to 
     amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 30 minutes divided in the following form: Senator Grassley in 
control of 10 minutes; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, in control 
of 10 minutes; the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for up to 8 
minutes; and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, for up to 2 minutes.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't see Senator Grassley, the chairman 
of the committee, in the Chamber. I expect him momentarily. In the 
meantime, I will say a few words with respect to the pending 
legislation.
  I am pleased, frankly, that in the final days of the 108th Congress, 
the Senate is set to pass at long last the miscellaneous tariff bill. 
This bill reduces or eliminates tariffs on literally hundreds of 
products that U.S. companies use to make products in America. It is a 
collection of many bills too small to be considered independently, and, 
traditionally, Congress collects these inexpensive and noncontroversial 
bills together into one big omnibus bill which the Senate then passes 
by unanimous consent. That is our tradition in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, that did not happen with this bill this time. For the 
first time in the history of the process, the House insisted we go to 
conference on the bill. Frankly, that is unfortunate. In the aggregate, 
the provisions of this bill represent a significant cost savings for 
U.S. manufacturers simply struggling to compete. We owe it to them to 
get the process back on track in the next Congress. I hope we can do 
that, and I promise to work very hard toward that end.
  I wish to highlight two provisions in this bill in particular that 
will help my State of Montana remain competitive. One is a provision 
that eliminates the tariff on specialized components used by a Bozeman-
based boot manufacturer called Schnee Shoes. This is a top-of-the-line 
company. They make the best boots for hunting. If a hunter goes out 
pheasant hunting, duck hunting, you buy Schnee. They are terrific. They

[[Page 24133]]

produce first-class products. Eliminating the tariff will save them 
tens of thousands of dollars a year and allow them to keep good-paying 
jobs in Bozeman, MT.
  The other provision improves the competitiveness of U.S. wool. We 
produce a lot of wool in Montana--$2 million a year. As other 
commodities and textiles, wool has faced an increasingly difficult 
marketplace over the past several years.
  In response, U.S. wool growers adopted a positive approach to embrace 
world markets; that is, setting up a wool trust fund. Through the wool 
trust fund, first established in 2000, U.S. exports of wool have risen 
sixfold as a share of domestic production. This successful program of 
the wool trust fund is, unfortunately, scheduled to expire next year. 
But this bill renews the wool trust fund through the year 2007 and 
allows the United States and Montana wool growers to continue to 
compete.
  I also want to speak about one other provision of this bill, normal 
trade relations with Laos, that I know has generated some controversy. 
I support granting normal trade relations to Laos. In the absence of 
normal trade relations, Laos is subject to average tariffs of 45 
percent, with peaks of 60 to 90 percent for important Laotian products 
such as T-shirts and bamboo chairs.
  In contrast, most U.S. trading partners, including Laotian 
competitors Burma, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, face average tariffs 
of only 2.4 percent compared, again, with Laos of 45 percent.
  Now, I know some of my colleagues oppose granting normal trade 
relations to Laos. They believe Laos must work harder on improving its 
human rights record before receiving normal trade relations. But normal 
trade relations, I must emphasize, is not a special privilege the 
United States grants only to certain countries, and it does not signify 
approval of a country's policies. It is not a free trade agreement or a 
preference program. Rather, it is the baseline economic relationship 
the United States has with virtually every other country in the world--
the baseline.
  In fact, there are only three countries on Earth that do not have 
normal trade relations: Cuba, North Korea, and Laos, and Laos is the 
only one of the three that has full, normal diplomatic relations with 
the United States.
  Laos has worked with the United States closely in accounting for U.S. 
prisoners of war and missing in action in Laos during the Vietnam war, 
supported U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Southeast Asia after 9/11, 
and has cooperated in a long-term bilateral counternarcotics program.
  Granting normal trade relations to Laos could have a dramatic effect 
on improving the dismal economic conditions in that country. Laos has 
the lowest life expectancy in Southeast Asia, and the highest fertility 
rate. It also has the highest adult illiteracy rate, particularly among 
women.
  Cambodia, on the other hand, has created more than 200,000 jobs since 
the United States granted that country normal trade relations in 1996. 
My hope is that normal trade relations for Laos will have a similar 
effect. Granting normal trade relations to Laos will also create 
opportunities to open the society, improve human rights, improve 
religious freedom, and improve the rule of law.
  That is why my good friend, Senator Grassley, and I have worked hard 
to pass normal trade relations for Laos, and why it is right to include 
it in this bill. I think it is time for us to remove an awkward legacy 
of the Vietnam war and grant normal trade relations to Laos.
  This bill includes a long list of provisions that will help American 
competitiveness. We should bring debate on this bill to a close and 
pass this constructive measure. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to 
vote for cloture.
  Mr. President, before I turn the floor over to my good friend, the 
chairman of our committee, I would like to thank several terrific staff 
members. I thank Everett Eissenstat and Zach Paulsen of the Republican 
staff who worked very hard to get this miscellaneous tariffs bill 
passed. Also, from the majority leader's staff, I thank Rohit Kumar and 
Andy Olson, two extremely able and very helpful people, who helped get 
these provisions into this bill. I also thank, on my staff, Sara 
Andrews, who really led the charge. She did a great job, assisted by 
John Gilliland, who is equally competent. That is an understatement. 
Both of them are just aces, and I am very proud of them. I thank them 
for their assistance.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 1047, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 2004, commonly called the miscellaneous tariff bill.
  This legislation has traveled a long and difficult road to get to the 
floor today. In fact, the journey began over 2\1/2\ years ago when 
Senator Baucus chaired the Finance Committee. The Senate historically 
passes a miscellaneous tariff bill at the end of every Congress. The 
bill under consideration today was supposed to pass at the end of the 
107th Congress. However, it was left as unfinished business for the 
current Congress. Upon resuming the chairmanship of the Finance 
Committee, my intention was to complete unfinished business from the 
107th Congress as quickly as possible. To that end, we passed the bill 
out of Committee by voice vote on February 27, 2003.
  We hoped that early passage of this bill would pave the way for 
consideration of another miscellaneous tariff bill in the 108th 
Congress. But that was not meant to be. Throughout the remainder of the 
Congress we faced significant delays and stall tactics. In March 2004, 
over a year after the bill was reported out of the Finance Committee, 
we reached agreement and passed the bill by unanimous consent. But 
quick conference consideration was not meant to be. We were forced to 
wait another 6 months before we could go to conference with the House. 
The conference committee quickly reached an agreement in October and 
the House passed the conference report shortly thereafter. However, 
Senate action was further delayed until today. Happily, it looks like 
the bill is finally near the end of its journey as we appear to be on 
the verge of passing this bill as one of the last orders of business 
for the 108th.
  At this point, it might be interesting to reflect on what the Senate 
Finance Committee has been able to accomplish on trade during the time 
it took to pass this bill. During the first session of the 108th 
Congress, we were able to complete work on the Clean Diamond Trade Act, 
legislation designed to help thwart trade in conflict diamonds. We also 
implemented two free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. In 
addition, we enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which put 
in place an import ban on products from Burma in an effort to help stop 
human rights abuses and the repression of democracy in that country.
  During the second session of the 108th Congress, we enacted the 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act, which continues trade 
preferences for some of the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa. We 
also implemented two trade agreements with Australia and Morocco and 
brought the United States into compliance with an adverse WTO ruling in 
the FSC/ETI case through passage of the American Jobs Creation Act of 
2004. There is no doubt that Senate passage of the conference report on 
the MTB will be a nice capstone to what has already been a highly 
successful Congress on trade.
  This package contains many trade provisions, primarily duty 
suspensions, reductions and extensions, for products that are not 
produced domestically. This bill supports American factories and 
workers by allowing manufacturers to save money when they import these 
products.
  Each of these provisions went through an extensive vetting process 
including a public notice and comment period to ensure that they did 
not compete with domestic manufacturers. The bill also contains a 
number of liquidations or reliquidations for certain entries.

[[Page 24134]]

  The general rule for inclusion here is that the product entered the 
country under an incorrect duty rate due to Customs or other 
administrative error. These provisions allow those entries to enter the 
country at the correct duty rate.
  There are several some other very important provisions in this bill. 
The bill grants the President the authority to provide permanent normal 
trade relations, PNTR, for Armenia. Armenia recently joined the World 
Trade Organization. But, in order to reap the benefits of their 
accession, the United States needs to extend PNTR to Armenia. This 
legislation provides the President with the authority to grant that 
extension. I also hope we will be able to consider similar treatment 
for Azerbaijan in the very near future.
  The bill also extends normal trade relations to Laos. Last year the 
Bush administration signed a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement 
with Laos, an agreement that was negotiated during the Clinton years. 
The agreement will promote U.S. interests by protecting U.S. 
intellectual property rights and opening the Laotian market to U.S. 
goods and services. It is a good agreement. But to enable the United 
States to benefit from it, we must extend normal trade relations to 
Laos. Doing so will also benefit the Laotian people. Laos is one of the 
poorest nations in Asia. Yet exports from Laos are subject to some of 
the highest tariffs when they enter the United States. This agreement 
will help alleviate poverty, help bring Laos out of the Vietnam War 
era, and further integrate Laos into the global marketplace.
  We also included in this bill a provision that extends preferences 
under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, to allow duty-free 
treatment for hand-knotted and hand-woven carpets. This provision is 
designed primarily to help the citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I 
believe that allowing these products to be considered as eligible 
articles under GSP will help beneficiary countries that have joined the 
United States in the fight against global terrorism.
  Further, H.R. 1047 corrects a mistake in the Trade Act of 2002 that 
inadvertently and temporarily raised duties on Andean originating 
handbags, luggage, flat goods, work gloves and leather wearing apparel 
under the Andean Trade and Preferences and Drug Eradication Act, 
ATPDEA. This provision retroactively reinstates the reduced duty 
treatment for eligible products that entered the U.S. from August 6, 
2002, the date ATPDEA was signed, and the time in which these products 
met the import sensitivity test, several months later. It provides for 
continued duty-free treatment for these eligible products, which was 
the intent of the trade act.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes the Emergency Protection for 
Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act. I introduced the EPIC Antiquities Act 
to authorize the President to continue emergency import restrictions on 
the archaeological and ethnological materials of Iraq. The purpose of 
this bill is simple--to close a legal loophole which could allow looted 
Iraqi antiquities to be brought into the United States.
  If Congress does not act to ensure the continuing means for banning 
trade in antiquities that may have been stolen, the door could be 
opened to imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. 
Already the press has reported allegations that European auction houses 
have traded in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in 
Congress want to do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi 
artifacts here in the United States.
  Other important provisions in the bill include modifications to the 
cellar treatment of natural wine and repeal of the 1916 act. Repeal of 
the 1916 act will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO 
obligations. We have also improved and extended the wool trust fund and 
added a provision that simplifies some processing U.S. Customs 
processing procedures, thereby resulting in increased efficiency and 
productivity for both the government and the trade community.
  I also want to point out that the provisions I have covered are not 
the only important provisions contained in this bill. This bill makes a 
number of other technical yet meaningful changes to our trade laws.
  I am very pleased that we are going to be able to pass this bill 
today. We would not be here today if not for the bipartisan efforts of 
a number of the Finance Committee staff, some of whom have long left 
the Senate. First, I want to thank Andy Harig who shepherded this bill 
through its first stages of development under Chairman Baucus' 
leadership during the 107th Congress. I also want to recognize Carrie 
Clark Phillips, for immersing herself in the tremendous complexities of 
this bill and her dedication to seeing the task done upon my resumption 
as chairman of the committee. Zach Paulsen and Sara Andrews also 
deserve recognition for their ability to pick up where Carrie and Andy 
left off and their hard work in bringing this bill to a successful 
conclusion. I also appreciate the hard work of Rohit Kumar, who was 
instrumental in helping us move this bill forward. Finally, Liese 
Wright, with the Washington International Business Council, has done an 
outstanding job bringing together, and holding intact, the Ad Hoc 
Coalition on Tariffs. In good times and bad, Liese remained ever 
hopeful and committed to getting this bill done. Her hard work and 
optimism is appreciated.
  Let me also thank the rest of the Finance Committee international 
trade staff for their work not just on this bill, but for all we have 
been able to accomplish this Congress. On Senator Baucus's staff I 
would like to recognize Russ Sullivan and Bill Dauster, who provided 
the guidance necessary to help the Committee accomplish its goals, and 
Tim Punke, Brian Pomper, John Gilliland and Shara Aranoff for their 
technical expertise and policy advice which was so crucial to our 
success. On my staff, I would like to thank Kolan Davis, Everett 
Eissenstat, Stephen Schaefer, David Johanson, Tiffany Atwell McCullen, 
and detailees Nova Daly and Dan Shepherdson. Their knowledge, hard 
work, and ability to pull together as a team, enabled me to accomplish 
a number of important trade priorities in this Congress. And for that, 
I am grateful.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to efforts to push through a provision in this bill 
normalizing trade relations with Laos.
  Let me first say I thoroughly enjoy my work with both managers of the 
bill. Senator Baucus and I agree on so many issues. We have had our 
disagreements on trade issues, but I do respect his views and 
arguments. Of course, I very much respect the Senator from Iowa. I have 
the pleasure of serving with him on a number of committees. I 
respectfully disagree with him on this particular aspect of the bill 
having to do with Laos.
  I am deeply disappointed that a decision was made to insert this 
provision into the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 
2004 conference report. The Senator from Montana suggested that those 
of us who are opposed to this provision simply believe that Laos could 
do better. I am afraid it is a lot more serious than Laos needing to do 
a little bit better on human rights.
  First, let there be no misunderstanding that this bill would sail 
through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not included. However, 
I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status as long as the human 
rights situation in that country remains so disturbing. I am not 
prepared to simply let this bill pass without at least some debate on 
this important matter.
  This is the wrong time to reward the Government of Laos with normal 
trade relations. Reports emerging from Laos continue to demonstrate 
that human right conditions in Laos remain appalling. It is not a 
question of simply doing a little better, it is appalling. Despite the 
Lao Government's denials, human rights organizations, the U.S. 
Government, and my constituents and various news agencies have all 
documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for human rights.
  I have tried to closely monitor the human rights situation in Laos as 
a

[[Page 24135]]

member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East 
Asia and Pacific Affairs, and also as a Senator representing over 
35,000 Hmong people in Wisconsin. Many of these people fled Laos 
following the end of the Vietnam war. Quite a number of the Hmong 
provided courageous assistance to the CIA during the Vietnam war, at 
great risk to themselves and their families. They helped rescue 
American pilots and hold off North Vietnamese troops.
  Especially at a time like this, I think we can all agree that we owe 
them a debt of gratitude, and we owe them better than simply rewarding 
normal trade relations to a government that has badly mistreated them.
  The Senator from Montana indicated this provision was an indication 
that it is time to put the legacy of the Vietnam war behind us. When it 
comes to the situation on the ground in Laos, the tragic legacy of the 
Vietnam war is very much alive for families of people who helped us 
during that very difficult conflict. So the legacy of Vietnam is not 
over when it comes to the treatment of the Lao Hmong people in Laos.
  I am regularly contacted by constituents concerned about their 
friends and families in Laos. Again and again, my office encounters 
reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos and other 
deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These reports, combined 
with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to investigate allegations 
or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to believe it is not in 
our country's national interest to adopt normal trade relations with 
the Lao Government.
  The United States has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I 
strongly believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human 
suffering and protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these 
allegations of atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at 
this time. In fact, I do recognize, as the Senator from Montana pointed 
out, that there are only a few countries that do not have NTR status. 
But that does not mean Laos deserves it any more than North Korea or 
perhaps Cuba. In fact, I have not supported the granting of NTR to some 
countries that have it now, such as China. In fact, I think the normal 
trade agreement with China is the biggest reason the State of Wisconsin 
has lost up to 80,000 manufacturing jobs since the middle of the year 
2000.
  You can call NTR normal, but, in fact, that was a semantic change 
from MFN, most-favored-nation treatment. It was a semantic change to 
try to make it easier to get these deals through. The fact is, normal 
trade relations with another country is not always right. Sometimes it 
is in our own interest in terms of protecting our jobs, and sometimes 
because of the outrageous human rights records that some countries 
have, and Laos, in my view, is certainly one of those countries.
  I know many of my colleagues have provisions in this bill they want 
passed, and I want the body to know, Mr. President, that I have 
repeatedly asked that we simply strip out this one contentious 
provision and pass the rest of the bill, and I am prepared to do that 
again. I heard the resuscitation of some of the other meritorious 
aspects of this bill, and I respect that. I am not sure I agree with 
every piece of the bill, but I do recognize much of it is good. My goal 
here is not to kill the whole bill. I simply want this item removed.
  At some point, this body has to come to grips with the fact that we 
tend to shove major policy decisions into larger bills without any real 
debate and discussion and without the American people having access to 
what their representatives are doing, thinking, or saying about some of 
these items. Somehow this has to change.
  I also realize the 108th Congress is drawing to a close, and many of 
us are already looking to head home to our families and constituents. 
But I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and say nothing against a 
provision that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication 
to human rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing cloture. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the series of events 
which have brought us here today. The miscellaneous tariff bill, a 
relatively noncontroversial bill that has been making its way through 
the Congress for more than a year now, which is full of worthy 
noncontroversial provisions, has become the vehicle to pass a bill that 
is controversial, to say the least.
  At the eleventh hour, behind closed doors, the conferees on this bill 
decided to tack on a bill to grant normal trade relations status to the 
Communist Laos People's Democratic Republic, one of the few remaining 
Communist states on the Earth.
  For many years, I have worked to shed light on the serious 
allegations of human rights violations in Laos, many involving the 
status of the Hmong ethnic minority. By attaching Laos NTR to this bill 
without any opportunity to debate it and to consider it on its merits, 
we are missing an important opportunity to hold the Lao Government 
accountable. We are also missing an important opportunity to press the 
Lao Government to allow credible international observers into Laos and 
into the remote jungles where the Hmong ethnic minority live.
  We should not be proceeding to this bill in its current form. The 
Finance Committee could have easily stripped the Laos NTR provisions 
from the conference report and passed a clean version of the 
miscellaneous tariff bill. Then we could have had a real debate on Laos 
NTR at a more appropriate time.
  I will have more to say on this matter after the cloture vote. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against cloture so that Laos NTR can be 
considered on its merits and not part of an omnibus trade package.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, every year U.S. businesses lose several 
billion dollars in revenues due to international theft of their 
products. Every time a book is photocopied without permission, a 
bootleg movie DVD is sold, or a piece of music is downloaded from the 
Internet, engineers, authors, musicians, actors, technicians, camera 
crews, lighting crews, building owners, investors--indeed, everyone 
involved in the process--lose money. The United States has long been 
the world leader in the creation of products protected by intellectual 
property. Almost every growing industry in the United States uses 
intellectual property laws as the single most important tool they have 
to ensure their companies will be viable and competitive in the world 
marketplace. Millions of employees throughout the United States can 
directly or indirectly tie their jobs to companies who use intellectual 
property protections for their products.
  Because intellectual property is so important to the U.S. economy, 
our Government has a long tradition of working hard with the 
international community to enforce the basic and fair rights 
established by intellectual property law. Enforcement of these rights 
in foreign countries is extremely important to the U.S. economy and so 
the Congress has long provided Government officials with the direction 
and tools they need to pursue fair treatment of intellectual property 
on an international basis.
  Be it through the Trade Act of 1974 or through the WTO establishment 
of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights, TRIPS Agreement, the U.S. Government has been very active in 
pursuing the protection of intellectual property that brings me to the 
bill at hand.
  As passed by the Senate on March 4, 2004, H.R. 1047 contained five 
important measures that would have given the U.S. Government more tools 
in our effort to protect intellectual property around the world. 
Specifically, the five intellectual property sections of H.R. 1047 
would provide the U.S. Trade Representative additional time to 
negotiate and consult with countries prior to bringing a World Trade 
Organization intellectual property dispute; it would

[[Page 24136]]

have given companies and innovators the ability to request the U.S. 
Government suspend certain trade benefits to Caribbean and Central 
American countries who are not meeting their intellectual property 
commitments; and it would have standardized the criteria for adequate 
and effective protection of intellectual property under several U.S. 
trade programs, thereby giving U.S. companies greater ability to 
protect their IP in several countries around the world.
  Unfortunately, during the conference with the House, H.R. 1047 was 
stripped of four of the five IP protections I just outlined. This is of 
great concern to me. I fear the House conferees who were opposed to 
these important IP measures are selling our economy short and 
jeopardizing thousands of U.S. jobs. Failure to pass these important 
protections diminishes the U.S. Government's ability to encourage 
foreign governments to crack down on intellectual property violations. 
It is difficult to motivate foreign governments to seek out and 
prosecute those who steal the property of U.S. companies and sell it to 
consumers at reduced prices. However, this language would have provided 
an extra incentive for foreign governments to prosecute intellectual 
property theft and, hopefully, would have led to billions of dollars of 
additional U.S. exports across several industries.
  Few U.S. industries enjoy a positive trade balance in the world 
marketplace; however, those few U.S. industries which do enjoy large 
positive trade balances with other countries depend on strong, 
internationally enforced intellectual property protections. It is 
beyond me why anyone would want to make it more difficult for these 
industries to enforce their property rights internationally. It is 
beyond me why anyone would want to stand idly by and watch American 
employees get ripped off by foreign companies.
  Although this legislation was stripped of most of the intellectual 
property protections I worked so hard to include, I am supporting its 
passage because it provides tariff relief to many industries throughout 
the country. Many of our Nation's largest manufacturers and employers 
in industries such as agriculture, textiles, chemicals, 
pharmaceuticals, electronics, heavy equipment, and food and beverages 
all benefit greatly from the reduced tariffs provided by this 
legislation.
  In fact, several large employers in my home State of Utah will 
benefit directly from this legislation. The reduced tariffs contained 
in this bill will provide these companies with the ability to compete 
for effectively in the global marketplace, to sell more products and 
services throughout the world, and create jobs in Utah. For these 
important reasons, I will support this legislation.
  Although the Senate has not been able to take advantage of this 
opportunity to pass four very important intellectual property 
provisions on the Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill, I am hopeful that we can 
come together at the start of the 109th Congress and take up and pass 
these important protections. Those industries which depend on IP 
protections agree that we need them; the U.S. Trade Representative's 
Office agrees that we need them; and I call on my Senate colleagues to 
work with me next Congress to pass these important tools to help us 
combat international IP theft.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________