[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2025-2037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 360. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit and to make the 
Hope Scholarship Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit refundable; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Smith to 
introduce the Greater Access To Education, or GATE Act, of 2007. This 
legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to 
make college more affordable, and thus provide greater access to 
postsecondary education for lower income students and working families. 
Simply put, this bill would expand expenses which qualify for the Hope 
Scholarship Credit, prevent aid for needy students from reducing the 
credit, and make the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits 
refundable.
  The cost of attending college in the U.S. has grown by 44 percent 
since 2000, far outpacing the median growth in income. We've seen a 35 
percent jump in inflation-adjusted average tuition and fees for in-
state students at public colleges and universities since 2001-02. The 
cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than just last year, 
averaging $12,796 including room and board.
  Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise Pell 
Grant Scholarships for needy students. This critical student aid has 
been frozen at just over $4000 for four years. Ten years ago, the 
maximum Pell Grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition, 
fees, room and board at a public four-year college. Last year, it 
covered only 35 percent of those costs.
  At the same time, we're seeing increasing competition among colleges 
and universities for the highest scoring students. And these students 
command higher tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit 
scholarships. As a result, there's a smaller proportion of the 
financial aid budget available for low income students at colleges with 
rising tuitions.
  A recent report by Education Trust found that many of the flagship 
and research-extensive public universities have reallocated financial 
aid resources away from the low income students who need help to go to 
college--mostly to compete for high income students who would enroll in 
college regardless of the amount of aid they receive. Between 1995 and 
2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities 
actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families 
with an annual income of $20,000 or less while they increased aid to 
students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 
2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the 
tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000--a 
staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995.
  In addition, many colleges and universities are now using 
``enrollment and revenue management'' firms to help manage admissions 
and financial aid. I am concerned that too many schools are trying to 
leverage their financial aid to entice wealthier and high scoring 
students to attend their schools, at the expense of aid to lower income 
students. In essence, they're directing financial aid dollars to 
students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings.
  As a result, low income students are disproportionately bearing the 
brunt of increased college tuition and fees. In turn, more and more 
students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. And, 
we've seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this 
country. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years 
of college with more than $16,000 in debt.
  And, last year, Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student 
aid programs, pushing college further out of reach for American 
families. It is the largest single cut the Federal Government has made 
to student aid programs, and it is expected to increase the debt burden 
of students and their families as many borrowers of student loans will 
face higher interest payments.
  Congress, simply, has moved in the wrong direction, and failed to 
help make college more affordable for students from low income and 
working families.
  Full time students receive about $3,100 per year in aid in the form 
of grants and tax benefits at 4-year public institutions. In 2003-04, 
however, only 56 percent of 4-year public institution students from 
families with incomes below $30,000 received sufficient grant aid and 
tax benefits to cover tuition and fees.
  Even worse, we know that each year there are hundreds of thousands of 
students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college but do not do so 
because of financial barriers.
  We must reverse this course and make college more affordable for 
students from low-income and working families.
  The first priority for this Congress should be to increase student 
aid for needy students. We must increase the amount of Pell grants to 
at least $5,100.
  The next thing we should do is make sure that the existing education 
tax credits work effectively for the families that need them most. The 
Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits have helped millions 
of Americans finance their college education. For this tax year, the 
credits allow eligible tax filers to reduce their tax liability by 
receiving a credit of up to $1,650 for the Hope program or up to $2,000 
for the Lifetime Learning credit for tuition and course-related fees 
paid for a single student.
  Unfortunately, research shows that these tax credits are not working 
as effectively as they could be. They do not support students who are 
currently enrolled in college to any significant degree, and they do 
not induce greater numbers of students, including working adults who 
need to upgrade their education and skills, to earn a postsecondary 
degree.
  Many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the 
maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering 
``tuition and related expenses.'' Students who attend colleges with 
lower tuition costs, such as those attending community colleges, are 
not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit.
  For college students attending institutions with relatively high 
tuition rates, the maximum credit will be available to cover the higher 
tuition. This is not the case, however, for many students, particularly 
the vast majority of community college students, as well as hundreds of 
thousands of students attending public four-year colleges, who attend 
college where the tuition is lower. These students are not able to 
access the full credit because tuition at these institutions is lower 
than the maximum credit, and the scope of the credit is limited to 
tuition and related expenses. College students must pay for much more 
than just tuition, however, including room and board, books, supplies, 
equipment and fees.
  Further, a student's eligibility for the Hope tax credit is actually 
reduced by any grants the student receives--Federal, State, or private. 
The impact of this limitation is felt particularly by the by the low 
income students that receive Pell Grants or other Federal or State 
assistance. Often, the assistance received fully offsets the amount of 
the credit.
  This legislation is simple and straightforward, and is crafted to 
address these shortcomings. First, in addition to tuition, it allows 
the Hope credit to cover room and board, required fees, books, 
supplies, and equipment. It is important to note that the IRS Code 
commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living 
expenses, in programs such as Section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre-
paid tuition plans.
  As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated 
with going to college. Room and board,

[[Page 2026]]

books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for 
those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges. The 
cost for books and supplies alone can be as high as $1000 per year.
  In addition, the legislation changes the IRS Code so that any Federal 
Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students 
receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope 
eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to 
needier students, especially those attending four-year public colleges.
  But these fixes only get to a part of the problem. Because the 
education tax credits are not refundable, a family of four must earn 
above $30,000 to get the maximum credit. A student or working family 
must have a positive tax liability to receive the credit. Nearly half 
of all families with college students do not get the full credit 
because their income is too low.
  In fact, only 36 percent of filers claiming the credits at all had 
incomes under $30,000; less than 10 percent of filers claiming the 
credits had incomes under $15,000. By contrast, 36 percent of filers 
claiming the credits earned $50,000 or more.
  Making the credits refundable would ensure that families in lower tax 
brackets are eligible for the maximum benefits and would thus make 
college more affordable to those students and families who need the 
most assistance.
  I believe we all can agree that maintaining a skilled and educated 
workforce should rank as one of our highest priorities. The National 
Academy of Sciences projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well 
today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in 
the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where 
innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow.
  This Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that every 
capable student who wants to go to college should be able to, which 
will in turn ensure that we have workers to fill the high-quality, 
high-wage jobs we are working so hard to create. I urge my colleagues 
to support this critical legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 360

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Greater Access To Education 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES ALLOWED AS PART OF 
                   HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT.

       (a) Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses Expanded to 
     Include Room and Board, Books, Supplies, and Equipment.--
     Paragraph (1) of section 25A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining qualified tuition and related expenses) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Additional expenses allowed for hope scholarship 
     credit.--For purposes of the Hope Scholarship Credit, such 
     term shall, with respect to any academic period, include--
       ``(i) reasonable costs for such period incurred by the 
     eligible student for room and board while attending the 
     eligible educational institution, and
       ``(ii) fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for 
     such period for courses of instruction at the eligible 
     educational institution.''.
       (b) Hope Scholarship Credit Not Reduced by Federal Pell 
     Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants.--
     Subsection (g) of section 25A of such Code (relating to 
     special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Pell and seog grants.--For purposes of the Hope 
     Scholarship Credit, paragraph (2) shall not apply to amounts 
     paid for an individual as a Federal Pell Grant or a Federal 
     supplemental educational opportunity grant under subparts 1 
     and 3, respectively, of part A of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a and 1070b et seq., 
     respectively).''.
       (c) Expanded Hope Expenses Not Subject to Information 
     Reporting Requirements.--Subsection (e) of section 6050S of 
     such Code (relating to definitions) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (g)(2)'' and inserting ``subsections (f)(1)(D) 
     and (g)(2)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid after December 31, 2006 (in tax 
     years ending after such date), for education furnished in 
     academic periods beginning after such date.

     SEC. 3. HOPE AND LIFETIME LEARNING CREDITS TO BE REFUNDABLE.

       (a) Credit To Be Refundable.--Section 25A of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Hope and Lifetime Learning 
     credits), as amended by section 2, is hereby moved to subpart 
     C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code 
     (relating to refundable credits) and inserted after section 
     35.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     redesignated as section 37.
       (2) Section 25A of such Code (as moved by subsection (a)) 
     is redesignated as section 36.
       (3) Paragraph (1) of section 36(a) of such Code (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2)) is amended by striking ``this 
     chapter'' and inserting ``this subtitle''.
       (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 72(t)(7) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``section 36(g)(2)''.
       (5) Subparagraph (A) of section 135(d)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 25A'' and inserting ``section 
     36''.
       (6) Section 221(d) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in paragraph (2)(B) 
     and inserting ``section 36(g)(2)'',
       (B) by striking ``section 25A(f)(2)'' in the matter 
     following paragraph (2)(B) and inserting ``section 
     36(f)(2)'', and
       (C) by striking ``section 25A(b)(3)'' in paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``section 36(b)(3)''.
       (7) Section 222 of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 25A'' in subparagraph (A) of 
     subsection (c)(2) and inserting ``section 36'',
       (B) by striking ``section 25A(f)'' in subsection (d)(1) and 
     inserting ``section 36(f)'', and
       (C) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in subsection (d)(1) 
     and inserting ``section 36(g)(2)''.
       (8) Section 529 of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in subclause (I) of 
     subsection (c)(3)(B)(v) and inserting ``section 36(g)(2)'',
       (B) by striking ``section 25A'' in subclause (II) of 
     subsection (c)(3)(B)(v) and inserting ``section 36'', and
       (C) by striking ``section 25A(b)(3)'' in clause (i) of 
     subsection (e)(3)(B) and inserting ``section 36(b)(3)''.
       (9) Section 530 of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in subclause (I) of 
     subsection (d)(2)(C)(i) and inserting ``section 36(g)(2)'',
       (B) by striking ``section 25A'' in subclause (II) of 
     subsection (d)(2)(C)(i) and inserting ``section 36'', and
       (C) by striking ``section 25A(g)(2)'' in clause (iii) of 
     subsection (d)(4)(B) and inserting ``section 36(g)(2)''.
       (10) Subsection (e) of section 6050S of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 25A'' and inserting ``section 
     36''.
       (11) Subparagraph (J) of section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 25A(g)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``section 36(g)(1)''.
       (12) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (13) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking the item relating to section 36 
     and inserting the following:

``Sec. 36. Hope and Lifetime Learning credits.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.
       (14) The table of sections for subpart A of such part IV is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 25A.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN. (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 361. A bill to designate the United States courthouse at South 
Federal Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos 
United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse 
in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States 
Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal bench in 
1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge 
in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from 
February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992.
  Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent 
most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and 
our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy 
from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney

[[Page 2027]]

General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 
1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the 
First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. He was the prime 
mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and 
had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his 
dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished 
achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and 
the University of New Mexico.
  Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle 
with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a 
role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and 
respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an 
appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe 
bear his name.
  The Senate passed a bill in the 108th Congress to name the same 
courthouse for Judge Campos by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the 
House was unable to take up the measure and it failed to be signed into 
law. I rise again to ask the Senate to pass the bill and honor the work 
and dedication of Judge Santiago Campos.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 361

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       The United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
     Santa Fe, New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the United States 
     courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
     Courthouse''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 364. A bill to strengthen United States trade laws and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help America's manufacturers compete on even terms with 
foreign manufacturers.
  For generations, American manufacturing has been a tremendous source 
of pride and a ladder to the middle class. Unfortunately, over the last 
several years, the manufacturing sector of our economy has suffered 
disproportionately and millions of good jobs have been lost. In my home 
State of West Virginia, well over 10,000 manufacturing jobs have 
disappeared since 2001. Workers and manufacturers in all of our States 
have found it increasingly difficult to compete in today's global 
markets, when the odds are stacked against them because of unfair 
trading practices.
  American industry can compete with anyone in the world when it's a 
fair fight. Our domestic and international trade laws were set up to 
establish a level playing field, but unfortunately some of our trading 
partners have repeatedly found ways to circumvent these laws in order 
to gain an unfair advantage in trade with the United States. This has 
led to our record-breaking--and still growing--trade deficits, which 
threaten the long-term health of our economy, and have contributed to 
the migration of manufacturing jobs to factories overseas. This is an 
enormous problem that the United States must face and conquer.
  A large part of the problem in recent years is that the Bush 
Administration has not been an aggressive enforcer of U.S. domestic 
trade laws. It has also failed to successfully advocate for U.S. 
interests in the multilateral dispute settlement setting. The bill I 
introduce today, the Strengthening America's Trade Law Act of 2007, 
will improve our ability to correct deficiencies in four areas of U.S. 
trade policy: first, it will address problems in the U.S. approach to 
the WTO Dispute Settlement process; second, it will strengthen 
antidumping remedies, third, it will expand the reach of countervailing 
duties, and fourth, it will remove the President's discretion to 
disregard the recommendations of the International Trade Commission in 
certain circumstances.
  The steel industry is perhaps the best-known example of how our trade 
laws can help or hurt domestic industry when it is injured by unfair 
foreign trade practices, but industries from timber to chinaware to 
candlemaking are all too familiar with this point.
  This bill contains a number of provisions that would provide 
meaningful improvements to U.S. trade law. The United States would 
remain fully compliant with its obligations in the World Trade 
Organization under this legislation.
  Let me briefly describe what this bill will do to level the playing 
field for American manufacturers.
  Title I of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act bolsters the 
United States' position in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. The 
dispute settlement system set up in 1994 upon the creation of the WTO 
was intended to establish a rules-based system of enforcing trade 
agreements. However, recent cases involving U.S. application of its 
laws regarding import surges, anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
have raised concerns about the fairness of the system.
  To address these concerns, Title I allows the direct participation in 
WTO dispute settlement proceedings of the U.S. business and trade 
associations that are directly affected by these proceedings, which 
would improve the prospects of zealous advocacy on behalf of U.S. 
interests at stake. It also creates a Congressional Advisory Commission 
on WTO Dispute Settlement that would analyze WTO decisions that are 
adverse to the United States, report to Congress on the propriety of 
the decisions and provide guidance for how the Congress might proceed 
in responding to adverse decisions.
  Title I also requires Congressional approval of all measures taken by 
the U.S. government to comply with adverse decisions. In most cases, 
compliance with an adverse WTO decision calls for legislative changes, 
but in some cases such as the recent case involving ``zeroing'' on 
dumping determinations, the Bush Administration has determined that the 
United States can comply with the adverse decision through regulatory 
changes such as altering the methodology through which the Commerce 
Department calculates the dumping margin. This provision of my trade 
bill would prevent the Administration from side-stepping Congress in 
determining how to respond to an adverse decision in the WTO. 
Congressional oversight is an important element of our trade policy, 
and these provisions would help restore it.
  Title II of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act tightens the 
rules in anti-dumping cases in favor of the petitioning domestic 
industry and makes it harder for dumping countries and businesses to 
circumvent the rules. Additionally, it applies a stricter methodology 
for determining the market value of goods from countries designated as 
``nonmarket economies'' (NMEs). These countries presently include small 
former Soviet republics such as Turkmenistan and Georgia, and also 
large U.S. trading partners such as China. These NME designations are 
an important element of U.S. trade policy, and Title II gives Congress 
the ability to approve or disapprove any change in a country's NME 
status.
  Title II also overrules the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in 
the Bratsk case, which inappropriately added a new requirement not 
presently included in our anti-dumping laws, namely that ITC anti-
dumping investigations must include evaluating the role of imports that 
are not actually subject to the investigation. This speculative element 
is not part of the investigation process that Congress mandated the ITC 
to follow in anti-dumping cases, and my bill would remove this 
judicially-added requirement that was never a part of our trade remedy 
law.
  Title III of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act expands the 
reach of countervailing duties (CVDs) in order to address two 
significant

[[Page 2028]]

sources of unfair trade: China's artificially undervalued currency, and 
the disparate treatment that international trade rules give to value-
added taxes (VAT) used by most U.S. trade partners.
  Unlike anti-dumping duties, CVDs have not been applied against 
imports from NME countries like China, leaving a huge hole in the trade 
remedies available to U.S. manufacturers who are competing against 
subsidized imports from China. This bill explicitly makes CVDs 
applicable to NME countries, and it and provides a methodology for 
determining subsidy levels in NMEs that is similar to the methodology 
for determining fair market value in anti-dumping investigations 
regarding NME countries.
  Next, Title III designates currency exchange rate manipulation as a 
subsidy that can be addressed by application of CVDs. It is well known 
that China's government pegs its currency's value to the value of a 
``basket'' of currencies including the dollar rather than allowing the 
value to be determined freely in currency exchange markets. This 
practice keeps China's currency artificially low, boosting Chinese 
exports and protecting Chinese domestic industry from imports. In 
December, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called this practice 
what it is, an ``effective subsidy.'' This provision of Title III would 
allow the U.S. government to apply our CVD law to this subsidy.
  Title III also contains a vital provision that would lead to the 
possible future use of CVDs as a remedy for the differential treatment 
that international trade rules give to value-added taxes (VAT) used by 
most U.S. trade partners. WTO rules provide that rebates on ``direct'' 
taxes such as income, employment, and real estate taxes constitute 
subsidies, whereas rebates on ``indirect taxes'' such as sales and VAT 
taxes are not subsidies. This puts U.S. producers at a significant 
disadvantage to producers in countries that use value-added tax (VAT) 
systems.
  Over 135 U.S. trading partners use VAT taxes for a significant amount 
of their revenue, and when U.S. exports enter a VAT tax country, they 
are subject to the importing country's VAT tax, whereas U.S. imports 
from a VAT tax country are not subject to the producing country's VAT 
tax. This unfair tax treatment constitutes both a hidden import duty 
for U.S. exports and a hidden export subsidy for VAT tax country 
products entering the United States.
  This provision of Title III would push the USTR to negotiate this 
issue to a satisfactory conclusion within the next two years. Failing 
such negotiations, it would designate this differential treatment a 
countervailable subsidy which would then be subject to CVDs.
  Finally, Title IV of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act would 
remove Presidential discretion to ignore the recommendations of the ITC 
in safeguard cases regarding China, or so-called ``Section 421'' cases. 
Section 421 of the legislation that provided for China's accession to 
the WTO is a ``safeguard'' provision that provides for temporary relief 
from surges of imports that have caused injury to domestic industry. 
There are a number of recent examples of President Bush's failure to 
take action in cases in which the ITC has recommended ``safeguard'' 
relief most notably on December 30, 2005, when he denied the relief 
that the ITC had recommended for U.S. steel pipe and tube manufacturers 
in the face of a surge of imports from China. Title IV would ensure 
that such denials do not happen in the future by removing Presidential 
discretion in applying safeguard measures in cases involving imports 
from China and instead making the findings and recommendations of the 
ITC the final word on the matter.
  The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act will provide meaningful 
improvements to U.S. trade law and a more level playing field for U.S. 
workers and manufacturers in an increasingly competitive global 
economy. I commend it to my colleagues and urge them to join me in 
pushing for its swift enactment. Congress has sat on the sidelines for 
too long as our country's finest manufacturers have been dealt blow 
after blow. This bill will not solve the trade deficit alone, but it is 
a reasonable start.
  I am going to ask my leadership, in my caucus and on the Finance 
Committee, to work with me on this legislation, and I look forward to 
joining forces with my allies on the other side of the aisle to move 
this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be entered into the 
record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 364

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                      TITLE I--DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

             Subtitle A--Findings, Purpose, and Definitions

Sec. 101. Congressional findings and purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.

           Subtitle B--Participation in WTO Panel Proceedings

Sec. 111. Participation in WTO panel proceedings.

Subtitle C--Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement

Sec. 121. Establishment of Commission.
Sec. 122. Duties of the Commission.
Sec. 123. Powers of the Commission.

  Subtitle D--Congressional Approval of Regulatory Action Relating to 
                         Adverse WTO Decisions

Sec. 131. Congressional approval of regulatory actions relating to 
              adverse WTO decisions.

      Subtitle E--Clarification of Rights and Obligations Through 
                              Negotiations

Sec. 141. Clarification of rights and obligations in the WTO through 
              negotiations.

    TITLE II--STRENGTHENING ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS

Sec. 201. Prevention of circumvention.
Sec. 202. Export price and constructed export price.
Sec. 203. Nonmarket economy methodology.
Sec. 204. Determinations on the basis of facts available.
Sec. 205. Clarification of determination of material injury.
Sec. 206. Revocation of nonmarket economy country status.

     TITLE III--EXPANSION OF APPLICABILITY OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

Sec. 301. Application of countervailing duties to nonmarket economies 
              and strengthening application of the law.
Sec. 302. Treatment of exchange-rate manipulation as countervailable 
              subsidy under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Sec. 303. Affirmation of negotiating objective on border taxes.
Sec. 304. Presidential certification; application of countervailing 
              duty law.

 TITLE IV--LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION IN ADDRESSING MARKET 
                               DISRUPTION

Sec. 401. Action to address market disruption.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Application to Canada and Mexico.

                      TITLE I--DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

             Subtitle A--Findings, Purpose, and Definitions

     SEC. 101. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States joined the World Trade Organization 
     as an original member with the goal of creating an improved 
     global trading system and providing expanded economic 
     opportunities for United States workers, farmers, and 
     businesses.
       (2) The dispute settlement rules of the WTO were created to 
     enhance the likelihood that governments will observe their 
     WTO obligations.
       (3) Successful operation of the WTO dispute settlement 
     system was critical to congressional approval of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements and is critical to continued support by the 
     United States for the WTO. In particular, it is imperative 
     that dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body--
       (A) operate with fairness and in an impartial manner;
       (B) strictly observe the terms of reference and any 
     applicable standard of review set forth in the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements; and
       (C) not add to the obligations, or diminish the rights, of 
     WTO members under the Uruguay Round Agreements in violation 
     of Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.

[[Page 2029]]

       (4) An increasing number of reports by dispute settlement 
     panels and the Appellate Body have raised serious concerns 
     within the Congress about the ability of the WTO dispute 
     settlement system to operate in accordance with paragraph 
     (3).
       (5) In particular, several reports of dispute settlement 
     panels and the Appellate Body have added to the obligations 
     and diminished the rights of WTO members, particularly under 
     the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Agreement on 
     Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on 
     Safeguards.
       (6) In order to come into compliance with reports of 
     dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body that have 
     been adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body, the Congress may 
     need to amend or repeal statutes of the United States. In 
     such cases, the Congress must have a high degree of 
     confidence that the reports are in accordance with paragraph 
     (3).
       (7) The Congress needs impartial, objective, and juridical 
     advice to determine the appropriate response to reports of 
     dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body.
       (8) The United States remains committed to the 
     multilateral, rules-based trading system.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subtitle to provide 
     for the establishment of the Congressional Advisory 
     Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement to provide objective and 
     impartial advice to the Congress on the operation of the 
     dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Adverse finding.--The term ``adverse finding'' means--
       (A) in a proceeding of a dispute settlement panel or the 
     Appellate Body that is initiated against the United States, a 
     finding by the panel or the Appellate Body that any law, 
     regulation, practice, or interpretation of the United States, 
     or any State, is inconsistent with the obligations of the 
     United States under a Uruguay Round Agreement (or nullifies 
     or impairs benefits accruing to a WTO member under such an 
     Agreement); or
       (B) in a proceeding of a panel or the Appellate Body in 
     which the United States is a complaining party, any finding 
     by the panel or the Appellate Body that a measure of the 
     party complained against is not inconsistent with that 
     party's obligations under a Uruguay Round Agreement (or does 
     not nullify or impair benefits accruing to the United States 
     under such an Agreement).
       (2) Appellate body.--The term ``Appellate Body'' means the 
     Appellate Body established by the Dispute Settlement Body 
     pursuant to Article 17.1 of the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (3) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (4) Dispute settlement body.--The term ``Dispute Settlement 
     Body'' means the Dispute Settlement Body established pursuant 
     to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
       (5) Dispute settlement panel; panel.--The terms ``dispute 
     settlement panel'' and ``panel'' mean a panel established 
     pursuant to Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (6) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute 
     Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules 
     and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes referred 
     to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(16)).
       (7) Terms of reference.--The term ``terms of reference'' 
     has the meaning given that term in the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding.
       (8) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       (9) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) a United States citizen or an alien admitted for 
     permanent residence into the United States; and
       (B) a corporation, partnership, labor organization, or 
     other legal entity organized under the laws of the United 
     States or of any State, the District of Columbia, or any 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
       (10) Uruguay round agreement.--The term ``Uruguay Round 
     Agreement'' means any of the Agreements described in section 
     101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
       (11) World trade organization; wto.--The terms ``World 
     Trade Organization'' and ``WTO'' mean the organization 
     established pursuant to the WTO Agreement.
       (12) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.
       (13) WTO member.--The term ``WTO member'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)).

           Subtitle B--Participation in WTO Panel Proceedings

     SEC. 111. PARTICIPATION IN WTO PANEL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--If the Trade Representative, in 
     proceedings before a dispute settlement panel or the 
     Appellate Body of the WTO, seeks--
       (1) to enforce United States rights under a multilateral 
     trade agreement, or
       (2) to defend an action or determination of the United 
     States Government that is challenged,

     a United States person that is supportive of the United 
     States Government's position before the panel or Appellate 
     Body and that has a direct economic interest in the panel's 
     or Appellate Body's resolution of the matters in dispute 
     shall be permitted to participate in consultations and panel 
     or Appellate Body proceedings. The Trade Representative shall 
     issue regulations, consistent with subsections (b) and (c), 
     ensuring full and effective participation by any such person.
       (b) Access to Information.--The Trade Representative shall 
     make available to persons described in subsection (a) all 
     information presented to or otherwise obtained by the Trade 
     Representative in connection with the WTO dispute settlement 
     proceeding in which such persons are participating. The Trade 
     Representative shall promulgate regulations to protect 
     information designated as confidential in the proceeding.
       (c) Participation in Panel Process.--Upon request from a 
     person described in subsection (a), the Trade Representative 
     shall--
       (1) consult in advance with such person regarding the 
     content of written submissions from the United States to the 
     panel or Appellate Body concerned or to the other member 
     countries involved;
       (2) include, if appropriate, such person or the person's 
     appropriate representative as an advisory member of the 
     delegation in sessions of the dispute settlement panel or 
     Appellate Body;
       (3) allow such person, if such person would bring special 
     knowledge to the proceeding, to appear before the panel or 
     Appellate Body, directly or through counsel, under the 
     supervision of responsible United States Government 
     officials; and
       (4) in proceedings involving confidential information, 
     allow the appearance of such person only through counsel as a 
     member of the special delegation.

Subtitle C--Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement

     SEC. 121. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute 
     Settlement (in this subtitle referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 5 
     members, all of whom shall be judges or former judges of the 
     Federal judicial circuits and shall be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate after considering the recommendations 
     of the Chairman and ranking member of each of the appropriate 
     congressional committees. Commissioners shall be chosen 
     without regard to political affiliation and solely on the 
     basis of each Commissioner's fitness to perform the duties of 
     a Commissioner.
       (2) Date.--The appointments of the initial members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the Commission shall each be 
     appointed for a term of 5 years, except that of the members 
     first appointed, 3 members shall each be appointed for a term 
     of 3 years.
       (2) Vacancies.--
       (A) In general.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made and shall be subject 
     to the same conditions as the original appointment.
       (B) Unexpired term.--An individual chosen to fill a vacancy 
     shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member 
     replaced.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--Except for the initial meeting, the 
     Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members.
       (h) Funding.--Members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence at 
     rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I 
     of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     their homes or regular places of business in the performance 
     of services for the Commission.

     SEC. 122. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Advising the Congress on the Operation of the WTO 
     Dispute Settlement System.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall review--
       (A) all adverse findings that are--

[[Page 2030]]

       (i) adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body; and
       (ii) the result of a proceeding initiated against the 
     United States by a WTO member; and
       (B) upon the request of either of the appropriate 
     congressional committees--
       (i) any adverse finding of a dispute settlement panel or 
     the Appellate Body--

       (I) that is adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body; and
       (II) in which the United States is a complaining party; or

       (ii) any other finding that is contained in a report of a 
     dispute settlement panel or the Appellate Body that is 
     adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.
       (2) Scope of review.--The Commission shall advise the 
     Congress in connection with each adverse finding under 
     paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B)(i) or other finding under 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii) on--
       (A) whether the dispute settlement panel or the Appellate 
     Body, as the case may be--
       (i) exceeded its authority or its terms of reference;
       (ii) added to the obligations, or diminished the rights, of 
     the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreement that is 
     the subject of the finding;
       (iii) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in 
     misconduct, or demonstrably departed from the procedures 
     specified for panels and the Appellate Body in the applicable 
     Uruguay Round Agreement; or
       (iv) deviated from the applicable standard of review, 
     including in antidumping, countervailing duty, and other 
     trade remedy cases, the standard of review set forth in 
     Article 17.6 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
     of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994;
       (B) whether the finding is consistent with the original 
     understanding by the United States of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreement that is the subject of the finding as explained in 
     the statement of administrative action approved under section 
     101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(a)); and
       (C) what actions, if any, the United States should take in 
     response to the finding, including any proposals to amend, 
     rescind, or otherwise modify a law, regulation, practice, or 
     interpretation of the United States.
       (3) No deference.--In advising the Congress under paragraph 
     (2), the Commission shall not accord deference to findings of 
     law made by the dispute settlement panel or the Appellate 
     Body, as the case may be.
       (b) Determination; Report.--
       (1) Determination.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 150 days after the date on 
     which the Commission receives notice of a report or request 
     under section 123(b), the Commission shall make a written 
     determination with respect to the matters described in 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (a), including a full analysis of 
     the basis for its determination. A vote by a majority of the 
     members of the Commission shall constitute a determination of 
     the Commission, although the members need not agree on the 
     basis for their vote.
       (B) Dissenting or concurring opinions.--Any member of the 
     Commission who disagrees with a determination of the 
     Commission or who concurs in such a determination on a basis 
     different from that of the Commission or other members of the 
     Commission, may write an opinion expressing such disagreement 
     or concurrence, as the case may be.
       (2) Report.--The Commission shall promptly report the 
     determinations described in paragraph (1)(A) to the 
     appropriate congressional committees. The Commission shall 
     include with the report any opinions written under paragraph 
     (1)(B) with respect to the determination.
       (c) Availability to the Public.--Each report of the 
     Commission under subsection (b)(2), together with the 
     opinions included with the report, shall be made available to 
     the public.

     SEC. 123. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold a public hearing to 
     solicit views concerning an adverse finding or other finding 
     described in section 122(a)(1), if the Commission considers 
     such hearing to be necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
     subtitle. The Commission shall provide reasonable notice of a 
     hearing held pursuant to this subsection.
       (b) Information From Interested Parties and Federal 
     Agencies.--
       (1) Notice to commission.--
       (A) Under section 122(a)(1)(A).--The Trade Representative 
     shall advise the Commission not later than 5 business days 
     after the date the Dispute Settlement Body adopts an adverse 
     finding that is to be reviewed by the Commission under 
     section 122(a)(1)(A).
       (B) Under section 122(a)(1)(B).--Either of the appropriate 
     congressional committees may make and notify the Commission 
     of a request under section 122(a)(1)(B) not later than 1 year 
     after the Dispute Settlement Body adopts the adverse finding 
     or other finding that is the subject of the request.
       (C) Findings adopted prior to appointment of commission.--
     With respect to any adverse finding or other finding to which 
     section 122(a)(1)(B) applies and that is adopted before the 
     date on which the first members of the Commission are 
     appointed under section 121(b)(2), either of the appropriate 
     congressional committees may make and notify the Commission 
     of a request under section 122(a)(1)(B) with respect to the 
     adverse finding or other finding not later than 1 year after 
     the date on which the first members of the Commission are 
     appointed under section 121(b)(2).
       (2) Submissions and requests for information.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall promptly publish in 
     the Federal Register notice of--
       (i) the notice received under paragraph (1) from the Trade 
     Representative or either of the appropriate congressional 
     committees; and
       (ii) an opportunity for interested parties to submit 
     written comments to the Commission.
       (B) Comments available to public.--The Commission shall 
     make comments submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     available to the public.
       (C) Information from federal agencies and departments.--The 
     Commission may secure directly from any Federal department or 
     agency such information as the Commission considers necessary 
     to carry out the provisions of this subtitle. Upon the 
     request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of 
     such department or agency shall furnish the information 
     requested to the Commission in a timely manner.
       (3) Access to panel and appellate body documents.--
       (A) In general.--The Trade Representative shall make 
     available to the Commission all submissions and relevant 
     documents relating to an adverse finding described in section 
     122(a)(1), including any information contained in such 
     submissions and relevant documents identified by the provider 
     of the information as proprietary information or information 
     designated as confidential by a foreign government.
       (B) Public access.--Any document that the Trade 
     Representative submits to the Commission shall be available 
     to the public, except information that is identified as 
     proprietary or confidential or the disclosure of which would 
     otherwise violate the rules of the WTO.
       (c) Assistance From Federal Agencies; Confidentiality.--
       (1) Administrative assistance.--Any agency or department of 
     the United States that is designated by the President shall 
     provide administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, or 
     other support services to the Commission to assist the 
     Commission with the performance of the Commission's 
     functions.
       (2) Confidentiality.--
       (A) Documents and information from agencies.--The 
     Commission shall protect from disclosure any document or 
     information submitted to it by a department or agency of the 
     United States that the agency or department requests be kept 
     confidential.
       (B) Disclosure of documents and information of 
     commission.--The Commission shall not be considered to be an 
     agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code.

  Subtitle D--Congressional Approval of Regulatory Action Relating to 
                         Adverse WTO Decisions

     SEC. 131. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF REGULATORY ACTIONS 
                   RELATING TO ADVERSE WTO DECISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 123(g) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3533(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (H); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(F) the appropriate congressional committees have 
     received the report on the determinations of the 
     Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement 
     under section 122(b)(2) of the Strengthening America's Trade 
     Laws Act with respect to the relevant dispute settlement 
     panel or Appellate Body decision;
       ``(G) a joint resolution, described in paragraph (2), 
     approving the proposed modification or final rule is enacted 
     into law after the appropriate congressional committees 
     receive the report on the determinations of the Congressional 
     Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute Settlement under section 
     122(b)(2) of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act; 
     and''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Joint resolution to approve modification in agency 
     regulation or practice.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the purposes of paragraph (1)(G), a 
     joint resolution is a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of the 
     Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     as follows: `That the Congress approves the modifications to 
     the regulation or practice of the United States proposed in a 
     report submitted to the Congress under subparagraph (D) or 
     (F) of section 123(g)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3533(g)(1) (D) and (F)) on _______, relating to 
     ______ .', with the first blank space being filled with the 
     date on which the report is submitted to the Congress and the 
     second blank space being

[[Page 2031]]

     filled with the specific modification proposed to the 
     regulation or practice of the United States.
       ``(B) Procedural provisions.--The procedural provisions of 
     subsections (d) through (i) of section 206 of the 
     Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act shall apply to a joint 
     resolution described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Modifications made between january 1, 2007 and the date 
     of the enactment of this act.--
       (A) In general.--Modifications to any regulation or 
     practice of a department or agency of the United States made 
     pursuant to the provisions of section 123(g) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3533(g)) that became 
     effective on or after January 1, 2007, and before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, shall be suspended upon the 
     enactment of this Act and have no effect.
       (B) Approval of modifications.--On or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Trade Representative and the head 
     of the department or agency within whose jurisdiction the 
     modification described in subparagraph (A) falls may seek 
     approval of such modification pursuant to the procedures set 
     out in section 123(g)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3533(g)(1)), as amended by subsection (a).

      Subtitle E--Clarification of Rights and Obligations Through 
                              Negotiations

     SEC. 141. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN THE WTO 
                   THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--After an adverse finding, the United 
     States shall work within the World Trade Organization to 
     obtain clarification of the Uruguay Round Agreement to which 
     the adverse finding applies to conform the Agreement to the 
     understanding of the United States regarding the rights and 
     obligations of the United States and shall not modify the 
     law, regulation, practice, or interpretation of the United 
     States in response to the adverse finding if--
       (1) the United States has stated at the Dispute Settlement 
     Body that the adverse finding has created obligations never 
     agreed to by the United States;
       (2) either of the appropriate congressional committees by 
     resolution finds that the adverse finding has created 
     obligations never agreed to by the United States; or
       (3) the Congressional Advisory Commission on WTO Dispute 
     Resolution makes a determination under section 
     122(a)(2)(A)(ii) that the adverse finding has created 
     obligations never agreed to by the United States.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall apply to any adverse 
     finding on or after January 1, 2002.
       (2) Effect on modification of regulation, practice, or 
     interpretation adopted before enactment of this act.--
       (A) In general.--Any agency that modified a regulation, 
     practice, or interpretation in response to an adverse finding 
     between January 1, 2002 and the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall provide notice that the modification shall cease to 
     have force and effect on the date that is 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and such modification shall 
     cease to have force and effect on such date.
       (B) Applicability in trade remedy cases.--The cessation of 
     the force and effect of the modification described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall apply with respect to--
       (i) investigations initiated--

       (I) on the basis of petitions filed under section 702(b), 
     732(b), or 783(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1671a(b), 1673a(b), and 1677n(a)) or section 202(a), 221, 
     251(a), or 292(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a), 2271, 2341(a), and 2401a(a)) after the date on which 
     the modification ceases to have force and effect under 
     subparagraph (A);
       (II) by the administering authority under section 702(a) or 
     732(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a(a) and 
     1673a(a)) after such date; or
       (III) under section 753 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1675b) after such date;

       (ii) reviews initiated under section 751 of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675)--

       (I) by the administering authority or the International 
     Trade Commission on their own initiative after such date; or
       (II) pursuant to a request filed after such date; and

       (iii) all proceedings conducted under section 129 of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3538) commenced after 
     such date.
       (3) Effect on prior statutory changes.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (2)(A) shall not apply to 
     modifications to statutes of the United States made in 
     response to adverse findings.
       (B) Clarification of united states rights.--If a statute of 
     the United States has been modified in response to an adverse 
     finding, the United States shall obtain clarification of the 
     rights and obligations of the United States affected by the 
     adverse finding pursuant to subsection (a).

    TITLE II--STRENGTHENING ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS

     SEC. 201. PREVENTION OF CIRCUMVENTION.

       Section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677j(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule.--The administering authority may 
     exclude altered merchandise from the class or kind of 
     merchandise subject to an investigation and order or finding 
     described in paragraph (1), if such exclusion is not 
     inconsistent with the affirmative determination of the 
     Commission on which the order or finding is based.''.

     SEC. 202. EXPORT PRICE AND CONSTRUCTED EXPORT PRICE.

       Section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677a(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``(including 
     antidumping and countervailing duties imposed under this 
     title)'' after ``duties''.

     SEC. 203. NONMARKET ECONOMY METHODOLOGY.

       Section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677b(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Valuation of factors of production.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administering authority, in valuing 
     factors of production under paragraph (1), shall utilize, to 
     the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
     production in one or more market economy countries that are--
       ``(i) at a level of economic development comparable to that 
     of the nonmarket economy country; and
       ``(ii) significant producers of comparable merchandise.

     In this paragraph, the term `surrogate' refers to the values, 
     calculations, and market economy countries used under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(B) Valuing materials used in production.--In determining 
     the value of materials used in production under subparagraph 
     (A), the following applies:
       ``(i) The administering authority may use the value of 
     inputs that are purchased from market economy suppliers and 
     are not suspected of being dumped or subsidized, only for the 
     quantity of such purchases.
       ``(ii) All materials purchased or otherwise obtained from 
     nonmarket economy countries shall be valued using surrogate 
     values under subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) A purchased material shall be viewed as suspected 
     of being subsidized if there are any affirmative findings by 
     the United States or another WTO member of export subsidy 
     programs in the supplying country.
       ``(iv) A purchased material shall be viewed as suspected of 
     being dumped if there are any affirmative findings by the 
     United States or other WTO member of dumping in the general 
     category of merchandise, or if information supplied by the 
     petitioner or otherwise of record suggests significant 
     underpricing to the purchaser in the nonmarket economy 
     country.
       ``(v) Surrogate values for materials from a market economy 
     country shall be disregarded as not reflective of prices in 
     that surrogate market only if prices in that market are 
     viewed as aberrational, such as a case in which prices 
     undersell or exceed any reported price in that surrogate 
     market by a large amount.
       ``(vi) There shall be a presumption that the administering 
     authority will include all market prices from a surrogate 
     market. Prices that are high or low shall be excluded only 
     when it is demonstrated that the prices are not reflective of 
     prices in the surrogate country for the relevant category of 
     merchandise.
       ``(vii) If amounts pertaining to the cost of production of 
     imports into a surrogate country from market economy 
     suppliers are used for valuing the materials used, such 
     amounts shall be valued on the basis of CIF (cost, insurance, 
     and freight), plus duties paid, to provide a proxy for prices 
     in the surrogate country competing with locally produced 
     goods. Such values shall not be reduced by the import duties.
       ``(C) Valuing labor.--
       ``(i) The administering authority may use an average of 
     wage rates for market economies, but shall ensure that labor 
     rates used fully reflect all labor costs, including benefits, 
     health care, and pension costs.
       ``(ii) Labor shall be the total labor employed by a 
     nonmarket economy country producer or used by a nonmarket 
     economy country producer in the overall business, with 
     allocations to other merchandise produced or sold by that 
     producer that is not subject merchandise.
       ``(iii) Labor shall reflect the average labor for all other 
     producers in the nonmarket economy country that are producing 
     the particular merchandise subject to investigation or 
     review, and shall not be limited to operations used for 
     export.
       ``(D) Valuing factory overhead, general selling and 
     administrative expenses, and profit.--
       ``(i) In general.--The administering authority shall use 
     the best information available with respect to likely values 
     of factory overhead, general selling and administrative 
     expenses, and profit from a surrogate country. If the values 
     determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C) for materials used 
     and labor consumed result in amounts that are demonstrably 
     larger or smaller than the amounts used in determining 
     surrogate ratios from financial or other reports from a

[[Page 2032]]

     surrogate country, adjustments shall be made to the ratios to 
     reflect fully the level of such costs and profits in the 
     surrogate country on a per item produced basis.
       ``(ii) Ratios defined.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the term `ratios' means--

       ``(I) the ratio of factory overhead to labor, materials, 
     and energy;
       ``(II) the ratio of general selling and administrative 
     costs to factory overhead, labor, materials, and energy; and
       ``(III) the ratio of profit to general selling and 
     administrative costs, factory overhead, labor, materials, and 
     energy.

       ``(E) Use of confidential information from a foreign 
     producer in a surrogate country.--The administering authority 
     shall generally use publicly available information to value 
     factors of production, except that, in a case in which any 
     foreign producer in the surrogate country that is willing to 
     provide information to the administering authority on factors 
     of production to produce the same class of merchandise and 
     such information is subject to verification, the 
     administering authority shall accept and use such 
     information. The relationship of the foreign producer 
     providing the information to a party to the proceeding shall 
     not be a basis for disqualification.''.

     SEC. 204. DETERMINATIONS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE.

       Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677e(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) fails to provide such information by the deadline for 
     submission of the information or in the form and manner 
     required, and in conformity with prior administering 
     authority determinations in the proceeding and final judicial 
     decisions in the proceeding, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
     and (e) of section 782,''.

     SEC. 205. CLARIFICATION OF DETERMINATION OF MATERIAL INJURY.

       Section 771(7) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(J) Clarification of determination of material injury.--
     In determining if there is material injury, or threat of 
     material injury, by reason of imports of the subject 
     merchandise, the Commission shall make the Commission's 
     determination without regard to--
       ``(i) whether other imports are likely to replace subject 
     merchandise, or
       ``(ii) the effect of a potential order on the domestic 
     industry.''.

     SEC. 206. REVOCATION OF NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY STATUS.

       (a) Amendment of Definition of ``Nonmarket Economy 
     Country''.--Section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1677(18)(C)(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Any determination that a foreign country is a 
     nonmarket economy country shall remain in effect until--

       ``(I) the administering authority makes a final 
     determination to revoke the determination under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(II) a joint resolution is enacted into law pursuant to 
     section 206 of the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act.''.

       (b) Notification by President; Joint Resolution.--Whenever 
     the administering authority makes a final determination under 
     section 771(18)(C)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(18)(C)(i)(I)) to revoke the determination that a foreign 
     country is a nonmarket economy country--
       (1) the President shall notify the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives of that determination not later than 10 
     days after the publication of the administering authority's 
     final determination in the Federal Register;
       (2) the President shall transmit to the Congress a request 
     that a joint resolution be introduced pursuant to this 
     section; and
       (3) a joint resolution shall be introduced in the Congress 
     pursuant to this section.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 
     Houses of the Congress, the matter after the resolving clause 
     of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves the 
     change of nonmarket economy status with respect to the 
     products of _____ transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress on _____.'', the first blank space being filled in 
     with the name of the country with respect to which a 
     determination has been made under section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(18)(C)(i)), and the 
     second blank space being filled with the date on which the 
     President notified the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives under subsection (b)(1).
       (d) Introduction.--A joint resolution shall be introduced 
     (by request) in the House by the majority leader of the 
     House, for himself, or by Members of the House designated by 
     the majority leader of the House, and shall be introduced (by 
     request) in the Senate by the majority leader of the Senate, 
     for himself, or by Members of the Senate designated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate.
       (e) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to a joint 
     resolution shall be in order in either the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, and no motion to suspend the 
     application of this subsection shall be in order in either 
     House, nor shall it be in order in either House for the 
     presiding officer to entertain a request to suspend the 
     application of this subsection by unanimous consent.
       (f) Period for Committee and Floor Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--If the committee or committees of either 
     House to which a joint resolution has been referred have not 
     reported the joint resolution at the close of the 45th day 
     after its introduction, such committee or committees shall be 
     automatically discharged from further consideration of the 
     joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar. A vote on final passage of the joint resolution 
     shall be taken in each House on or before the close of the 
     15th day after the joint resolution is reported by the 
     committee or committees of that House to which it was 
     referred, or after such committee or committees have been 
     discharged from further consideration of the joint 
     resolution. If, prior to the passage by one House of a joint 
     resolution of that House, that House receives the same joint 
     resolution from the other House, then--
       (A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     joint resolution had been received from the other House, but
       (B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       (2) Computation of days.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in 
     computing a number of days in either House, there shall be 
     excluded any day on which that House is not in session.
       (g) Floor Consideration in the House.--
       (1) Motion privileged.--A motion in the House of 
     Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint 
     resolution shall be highly privileged and not debatable. An 
     amendment to the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it 
     be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
       (2) Debate limited.--Debate in the House of Representatives 
     on a joint resolution shall be limited to not more than 20 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring 
     and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to 
     limit debate shall not be debatable. It shall not be in order 
     to move to recommit a joint resolution or to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which a joint resolution is agreed to 
     or disagreed to.
       (3) Motions to postpone.--Motions to postpone, made in the 
     House of Representatives with respect to the consideration of 
     a joint resolution, and motions to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, shall be decided without 
     debate.
       (4) Appeals.--All appeals from the decisions of the Chair 
     relating to the application of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives to the procedure relating to a joint 
     resolution shall be decided without debate.
       (5) Other rules.--Except to the extent specifically 
     provided in the preceding provisions of this subsection, 
     consideration of a joint resolution shall be governed by the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to other 
     bills and resolutions in similar circumstances.
       (h) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
       (1) Motion privileged.--A motion in the Senate to proceed 
     to the consideration of a joint resolution shall be 
     privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion 
     shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to.
       (2) Debate limited.--Debate in the Senate on a joint 
     resolution, and all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 20 
     hours. The time shall be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees.
       (3) Control of debate.--Debate in the Senate on any 
     debatable motion or appeal in connection with a joint 
     resolution shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be 
     equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the 
     manager of the joint resolution, except that in the event the 
     manager of the joint resolution is in favor of any such 
     motion or appeal, the time in opposition thereto shall be 
     controlled by the minority leader or his designee. Such 
     leaders, or either of them, may, from time under their 
     control on the passage of a joint resolution, allot 
     additional time to any Senator during the consideration of 
     any debatable motion or appeal.
       (4) Other motions.--A motion in the Senate to further limit 
     debate is not debatable. A motion to recommit a joint 
     resolution is not in order.
       (i) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--
     Subsections (c) through (h) are enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     subsections (c) through (h) are deemed a part of the rules of 
     each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to 
     the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of 
     joint resolutions described in subsection (c), and 
     subsections (c) through (h) supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner

[[Page 2033]]

     and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 
     that House.

     TITLE III--EXPANSION OF APPLICABILITY OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

     SEC. 301. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET 
                   ECONOMIES AND STRENGTHENING APPLICATION OF THE 
                   LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' after ``country'' 
     each place it appears.
       (b) Definition of Countervailable Subsidy.--Section 
     771(5)(E) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     clauses (i) through (iv), if there is a reasonable indication 
     that government intervention has distorted prices or other 
     economic indicators in the country that is subject to the 
     investigation or review, or if data regarding such prices or 
     economic indicators are otherwise unavailable, then the 
     administering authority shall measure the benefit conferred 
     to the recipient by reference to data regarding relevant 
     prices or other economic indicators from a country other than 
     the country that is subject to the investigation or review. 
     If there is a reasonable indication that prices or other 
     economic indicators within a political subdivision, dependent 
     territory, or possession of a foreign country are distorted, 
     or data are not available, then the administering authority 
     shall measure the benefit conferred to the recipient in that 
     political subdivision, dependent territory, or possession by 
     reference to data from the most comparable area or region in 
     which relevant prices or other economic indicators are not 
     distorted, regardless of whether such area or region is in 
     the same country.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) apply to petitions filed under section 702 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a) on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Antidumping Provisions Not Affected.--The amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall not affect the status 
     of a country as a nonmarket economy country for the purposes 
     of any matter relating to antidumping duties under subtitle B 
     of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF EXCHANGE-RATE MANIPULATION AS 
                   COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDY UNDER TITLE VII OF THE 
                   TARIFF ACT OF 1930.

       (a) Amendments to Definition of Countervailable Subsidy.--
     Section 771(5)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1677(5)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The term'' and inserting ``(i) The 
     term'';
       (2) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) as subclauses 
     (I) through (IV), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The term `provides a financial contribution' 
     includes engaging in exchange-rate manipulation (as defined 
     in paragraph (5C)).''.
       (b) Definition of Exchange-Rate Manipulation.--Section 771 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (5B) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5C) Definition of exchange-rate manipulation.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraphs (5) and (5A), 
     the term `exchange-rate manipulation' means protracted large-
     scale intervention by a country to undervalue the country's 
     currency in the exchange market that prevents effective 
     balance-of-payments adjustment or that gains an unfair 
     competitive advantage over any other country.
       ``(B) Factors.--In determining whether exchange-rate 
     manipulation is occurring and a benefit thereby conferred, 
     the administering authority in each case--
       ``(i) shall consider the exporting country's--

       ``(I) bilateral balance-of-trade surplus or deficit with 
     the United States;
       ``(II) balance-of-trade surplus or deficit with its other 
     trading partners individually and in the aggregate;
       ``(III) foreign direct investment in its territory;
       ``(IV) currency-specific and aggregate amounts of foreign 
     currency reserves; and
       ``(V) mechanisms employed to maintain its currency at a 
     fixed exchange rate relative to another currency and, 
     particularly, the nature, duration, monetary expenditures, 
     and potential monetary expenditures of those mechanisms;

       ``(ii) may consider such other economic factors as are 
     relevant; and
       ``(iii) shall measure the trade surpluses or deficits 
     described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) with 
     reference to the trade data reported by the United States and 
     the other trading partners of the exporting country, unless 
     such trade data are not available or are demonstrably 
     inaccurate, in which case the exporting country's trade data 
     may be relied upon if shown to be sufficiently accurate and 
     trustworthy.
       ``(C) Type of economy.--A country found to be engaged in 
     exchange-rate manipulation may have--
       ``(i) a market economy;
       ``(ii) a nonmarket economy; or
       ``(iii) a combination thereof.''.

     SEC. 303. AFFIRMATION OF NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVE ON BORDER 
                   TAXES.

       The Congress reaffirms the negotiating objective relating 
     to border taxes set forth in section 2102(b)(15) of the 
     Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 
     3802(b)(15)).

     SEC. 304. PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION; APPLICATION OF 
                   COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW.

       (a) Certification by the President.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall certify to the 
     Congress by January 1, 2009 that, under the Agreement on 
     Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or subsequent agreement 
     of the World Trade Organization, the full or partial 
     exemption, remission, or deferral specifically related to 
     exports of direct taxes is treated in the same manner as the 
     full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of indirect taxes.
       (2) Effect of failure to certify.--If the President does 
     not make the certification to Congress required by paragraph 
     (1) by January 1, 2009, the Secretary of Commerce, in any 
     investigation conducted under subtitle A of title VII of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) to determine 
     whether a countervailable subsidy is being provided with 
     respect to a product of a country that provides the full or 
     partial exemption, remission, or deferral specifically 
     related to exports of indirect taxes on products exported 
     from that country, shall treat as a countervailable subsidy 
     the full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of indirect taxes paid on 
     that product.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.--
     The term ``Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
     Measures'' means the agreement referred to in section 
     101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(12)).
       (2) Direct taxes.--The term ``direct taxes'' means taxes on 
     wages, profits, interest, rents, royalties, and all other 
     forms of income, and taxes on the ownership of real property.
       (3) Import charges.--The term ``import charges'' means 
     tariffs, duties, and other fiscal charges that are levied on 
     imports.
       (4) Indirect taxes.--The term ``indirect taxes'' means 
     sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, 
     transfer, inventory, and equipment taxes, border taxes, and 
     all taxes other than direct taxes and import charges.
       (5) Full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of direct taxes.--The term 
     ``full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of direct taxes'' means 
     direct taxes that are paid to the United States Government by 
     a business concern and are fully or partially exempted, 
     remitted, or deferred by the Government by reason of the 
     export by that business concern of its products from the 
     United States.
       (6) Full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of indirect taxes.--The term 
     ``full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral 
     specifically related to exports of indirect taxes'' means 
     indirect taxes that are paid to the government of a country 
     by a business concern and are fully or partially exempted, 
     remitted, or deferred by that government by reason of the 
     export by that business concern of its products from that 
     country.
       (c) Effective Period.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective 
     on the date on which the President makes a certification 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Termination of countervailing duty orders.--Any 
     countervailing duty order that is issued pursuant to an 
     investigation conducted under subsection (a) and is still in 
     effect on the date described in paragraph (1) shall terminate 
     on such date.

 TITLE IV--LIMITATION ON PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION IN ADDRESSING MARKET 
                               DISRUPTION

     SEC. 401. ACTION TO ADDRESS MARKET DISRUPTION.

       Section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``to the extent and for 
     such period'' and all that follows to the end period and 
     inserting ``as recommended by the International Trade 
     Commission'';
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``agreed upon by either 
     group'' and all that follows to the end period and inserting 
     ``shall be considered an affirmative determination'';
       (3) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``on Proposed Remedies'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``for Relief'';
       (B) by striking ``the Commission shall propose'' and 
     inserting ``the Commission shall recommend''; and
       (C) by striking ``proposed action'' and inserting 
     ``recommended action'';
       (4) by striking subsection (h);
       (5) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in the flush sentence at the end of paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``agreed upon by either group'' and all that follows 
     to the end period and inserting ``shall be deemed an 
     affirmative determination''; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
       (6) by striking subsections (j) and (k);

[[Page 2034]]

       (7) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (l) to read as 
     follows: ``(1) The President's implementation of the 
     International Trade Commission remedy shall be published in 
     the Federal Register.'';
       (8) by amending subsection (m) to read as follows:
       ``(m) Effective Date of Relief.--Import relief under this 
     section shall take effect on the date the International Trade 
     Commission's recommendation is published in the Federal 
     Register, but not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     Commission's vote recommending the relief.'';
       (9) by amending subsection (n) to read as follows:
       ``(n) Modification of Relief.--Any import relief that 
     includes an increase in duty or the imposition of import 
     restrictions shall be for a period not to exceed 3 years.''; 
     and
       (10) by striking subsection (o).

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.

       Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3438), this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     goods from Canada and Mexico.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 366. A bill to authorize the conveyance of certain Federal land in 
the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an 
uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt 
committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk 
for his signature.
  I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important 
mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las 
Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North 
America and contains a great variety of unique plant and animal 
species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of the 
Southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important 
that we teach our youth an appreciation for New Mexico's biological 
diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.
  The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a non-profit institution that 
has spent the past six years providing hands-on science education to K-
12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides 
classroom presentations, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects and 
teacher workshops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 
600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders 
to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable 
resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative 
to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been 
so beneficial to the surrounding community.
  The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement 
in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA--Agriculture Research Service 
(USDA-ARS) property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will 
expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location 
so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.
  The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of 
land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that 
they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the 
land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert 
Park. In addition, this bill was passed by the Senate in the 109th 
Congress without amendments by unanimous consent. I have no doubt that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of 
this land transfer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 366

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Jornada Experimental Range 
     Transfer Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Chihuahuan Desert 
     Nature Park Board.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO CHIHUAHUAN DESERT NATURE PARK 
                   BOARD.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the Board, by 
     quitclaim deed, for no consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the land described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of not more than 1000 acres of land 
     selected by the Secretary--
       (1) that is located in the Jornada Experimental Range in 
     the State of New Mexico; and
       (2) that is subject to an easement granted by the 
     Agricultural Research Service to the Board.
       (c) Conditions.--The conveyance of land under subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to--
       (1) the condition that the Board pay--
       (A) the cost of any surveys of the land; and
       (B) any other costs relating to the conveyance;
       (2) any rights-of-way to the land reserved by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) a covenant or restriction in the deed to the land 
     described in subsection (b) requiring that--
       (A) the land may be used only for educational purposes;
       (B) if the land is no longer used for the purposes 
     described in subparagraph (A), the land shall, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States; and
       (C) if the land is determined by the Secretary to be 
     environmentally contaminated under subsection (d)(2)(A), the 
     Board shall remediate the contamination; and
       (4) any other terms and conditions that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Reversion.--If the land conveyed under subsection (a) 
     is no longer used for the purposes described in subsection 
     (c)(3)(A)--
       (1) the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, 
     revert to the United States; and
       (2) if the Secretary chooses to have the land revert to the 
     United States, the Secretary shall--
       (A) determine whether the land is environmentally 
     contaminated, including contamination from hazardous wastes, 
     hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, petroleum, or 
     petroleum by-products; and
       (B) if the Secretary determines that the land is 
     environmentally contaminated, the Board or any other person 
     responsible for the contamination shall remediate the 
     contamination.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Brown, 
        Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 367. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the 
import, export, and sale of goods made with sweatshop labor, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this week I am introducing a bipartisan 
piece of legislation that every Member of the Senate should support. 
The legislation aims to crack down on sweatshop abuses taking place in 
overseas factories that produce merchandise for sale in the American 
marketplace.
  The United States currently prohibits the importation of products 
made with prison labor but does not similarly prohibit the importation 
of products made in sweatshops under slave-like conditions. What is 
more, if a U.S. retailer finds that one of its competitors is importing 
products made in a foreign sweatshop, it has no recourse in U.S. courts 
and is placed at a competitive disadvantage.
  I am certain that if Members of the Senate were asked to raise their 
hand if they support abusive sweatshop conditions at foreign factories 
producing for the United States, not one hand would go up. Yet, as the 
media and watchdog groups have documented all too well, these 
conditions are prevalent in a number of our major trading partners.
  We have to put a stop to this. Sweatshop factories undermine the 
foreign workers who work in them, and they undermine U.S. workers who 
are asked to compete with them.
  The bill I am introducing is called the Decent Working Conditions and 
Fair Competition Act, and it is really very simple.
  First, the bill says that it is illegal to bring the product of 
sweatshop factories to this country. In this bill, a ``sweatshop 
factory'' is one where workers are abused in violation of that 
country's labor laws.
  Second, the bill allows U.S. retailers the right to sue their 
competitors for damages in U.S. court if their competitors are sourcing 
their merchandise from sweatshop factories.

[[Page 2035]]

  Let me give you an example of why such legislation is essential, 
involving the country of Jordan.
  Our trade negotiators signed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement in 
October of 2000. The agreement was negotiated under the Clinton 
administration, and it was supposed to be a model trade agreement. I 
give the Clinton administration credit for at least giving some thought 
to putting labor provisions in the trade deal with Jordan.
  But those labor provisions were not enforced, and the result has been 
the proliferation of sweatshops in Jordan. In May of last year, the New 
York Times described this trend.
  It turned out that when the agreement was signed in 1999, Jordan 
began to fly in so-called guest workers from countries like Bangladesh 
and China to make products in Jordan for sale at stores like Wal-Mart 
and Target. The conditions for these so-called guest workers in Jordan 
were slave-like.
  This is how the New York Times described it: ``Propelled by a free 
trade agreement with the United States, apparel manufacturing is 
booming in Jordan, its exports to America soaring twenty fold in the 
last five years. But some foreign workers in Jordanian factories that 
produce garments for Target, Wal-Mart and other retailers are 
complaining of dismal conditions--of 20-hour days, of not being paid 
for months and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they 
complain.''
  These were some of the other conditions documented at these 
factories. Workers were promised $120 a month but in some cases were 
hardly paid at all. One worker was paid only $50 for 5 months of work. 
And 40-hour shifts were common. Incredibly, the 40-hour shift 
apparently had replaced the 40-hour workweek.
  To its credit, Wal-Mart admitted to the New York Times that it had 
found ``serious problems with the conditions at several major Jordanian 
factories.'' But it should not have taken a New York Times 
investigation to uncover these abuses.
  Here is another instance of sweatshop conditions. In November 2006, 
BusinessWeek had a cover story on sweatshop abuses entitled ``Secrets, 
Lies, and Sweatshops.'' The article begins with the description of a 
Chinese company called the Ningbo Beifa Group. This company has made a 
lot of money as a top supplier of pens, mechanical pencils, and 
highlighters to Wal-Mart Stores and other major retailers.
  In 2005, Wal-Mart inspected this company's factories. It found that 
the company was paying its 3,000 workers less than China's minimum wage 
and violating overtime rules. So Wal-Mart asked the company to fix 
these serious problems.
  The Chinese company failed to do so. Wal-Mart then returned to the 
company, found the same problems, and told the company to shape up. 
Again, the Chinese company failed to do so and happily continued making 
pens and highlighters for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart returned a third time and 
gave the Chinese company its third warning. Once again, the Chinese 
company failed to treat its workers according to Chinese law.
  So finally, even Wal-Mart had had enough, and they issued a fourth 
warning--comply with the law or we will stop doing business with you. 
What did the Chinese company do? It turned to another Chinese company 
called the Shanghai Corporate Responsibility Management & Consulting 
Co. For a $5,000 fee, the company promised to send a consultant to take 
care of the Wal-Mart problem.
  The consultant provided advice on how to create fake but authentic-
looking payroll records. The consultant also told the company that, on 
the day of the fourth Wal-Mart audit, they should give the day off to 
any workers with grievances, so that they would not tell any 
inconvenient stories. After following the consultant's advice, the 
Chinese factory passed the Wal-Mart audit--even though the Chinese 
company later admitted that it didn't change any of its practices.
  Now, I am not suggesting that Wal-Mart deliberately turned a blind 
eye in this case. And there are certainly documented cases of other 
companies selling sweatshop products in the United States.
  But I do think that companies that decide to import products for sale 
in this country should not be allowed to gain an unfair competitive 
advantage by deliberately sourcing from sweatshop factories. And the 
bill that I am introducing would address such abuses by banning the 
importation or sale of products made in factories under sweatshop 
conditions.
  For purposes of the bill, ``sweatshop conditions'' are gross 
violations of the labor, health, and safety laws of the country where 
the labor is performed. Enforcement would be divided between the 
Customs Service and the Federal Trade Commission. If the Federal Trade 
Commission determined that a factory was operating under sweatshop 
conditions, it would issue an order prohibiting the sale of products 
from that factory. Violations of those orders would then carry a civil 
penalty of up to $10,000 for each individual violation.
  The import ban deals only with goods that can be proven to have been 
made with sweatshop labor and is not a ban of products based on the 
country of origin. In order to comply with nondiscrimination provisions 
of the WTO, the sales ban would apply to both domestic and imported 
goods. The President could waive the application of this section to 
particular goods, but the Congress would also be able to pass a joint 
resolution rejecting a Presidential waiver.
  The legislation also creates a private right of action for U.S. 
retailers and their investors to bring a civil action against 
competitors who import or sell sweatshop goods. For each offense, 
plaintiffs can sue for damages of the higher of $10,000 or the actual 
value of the goods. They can also sue for injunctive relief, to prevent 
the further entry of these goods into the U.S. marketplace.
  This legislation is similar to S. 3485, a bill that I introduced late 
in the last Congress. I am happy that, in introducing the legislation 
in the 110th Congress, I am being joined by Senator Graham of South 
Carolina, who has agreed to lead the effort to advance it from the 
other side of the aisle. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senator 
Sherrod Brown, who last year introduced a companion piece of 
legislation in the House of Representatives. And I would also like to 
thank the other original cosponsors of the bill, Senators Byrd, 
Feingold, and Sanders.
  I believe that one of the messages the American people sent to 
Congress in the November elections is that they demand fair trade. The 
legislation I am introducing is a way for Congress to show that the 
message has been heard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reed, Mr. Salazar, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 368. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to enhance the cops on the beat grant program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation, 
the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, to reauthorize the Department of 
Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). This 
program has achieved what my colleagues and I hoped for back when we 
were debating the 1994 Crime Bill. Prior to the final vote, in August 
of 1994, I stated that ``I will vote for this bill, because, as much as 
anything I have ever voted on in 22 years in the U.S. Senate, I truly 
believe that passage of this legislation will make a difference in the 
lives of the American people. I believe with every fiber in my being 
that if this bill passes, fewer people will be murdered, fewer people 
will be victims, fewer women will be senselessly beaten, fewer people 
will continue on the drug path, and fewer children will become 
criminals.''

[[Page 2036]]

  Fortunately, with the creation of the COPS program, we were able to 
form a partnership amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
and create programs that helped drive down crime rates for eight 
consecutive years. In 1994 we had historically high rates of violent 
crimes, such as murders, forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults. We 
were able to reduce these to the lowest levels in a generation. We 
reduced the murder rate by 37.8 percent; we reduced forcible rapes by 
19.1 percent; and we reduced aggravated assaults by 25.5 percent. 
Property crimes, including auto thefts also were reduced from 
historical highs to the lowest levels in decades. The COPS program has 
been endorsed by every major law enforcement group in the Nation, 
including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the 
National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the National 
Sheriffs Association (NSA), the International Brotherhood of Police 
Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
Officials (NOBLE), the International Union of Police Associations 
(IUPA), the Fraternal Order of Police, and others.
  Rather than support this important program, the Bush Administration 
and Republican leadership has been set on eliminating it. President 
Bush has proposed cuts each year he has been in office, and while we 
have fought to maintain funding for COPS, the hiring program was 
completely eliminated in 2005. Overall funding for State and local law 
enforcement programs has been slashed by billions and the COPS hiring 
program has been completely eliminated. Last year's budget request 
contained only $117 million for local law enforcement from COPS and the 
complete elimination of the Justice Assistance Grant.
  These cuts are coming at the worst possible time. Local law 
enforcement is facing what I have called a perfect storm. The FBI is 
reprogramming its field agents from local crime to terrorism. 
Undoubtedly, this is necessary given the threats facing our Nation. 
But, this means that there will be less Federal assistance for drug 
cases, bank robberies, and violent crime. Local law enforcement will be 
required to fill the gap left by the FBI in addition to performing more 
and more homeland security duties.
  Due to budget restraints at the local level and the unprecedented 
cuts in Federal assistance they will be less able to do either. 
Articles in the USA Today and the New York Times highlighted the fact 
that many cities are being forced to eliminate officers because of 
local budgets woes. In fact, New York City has lost over 3,000 officers 
in the 1ast few years. Other cities, such as Cleveland, MN, and 
Houston, TX, are facing similar shortages. As a result, local police 
chiefs are reluctantly pulling officers from the proactive policing 
activities that were so successful in the nineties, and they are unable 
to provide sufficient numbers of officers for Federal task forces. 
These choices are not made lightly. Police chiefs understand the value 
of proactive policing and the need to be involved in homeland security 
task forces; however, they simply don't have the manpower to do it all. 
Responding to emergency calls must take precedence over proactive 
programs and task forces, and we are beginning to pay the price. The 
FBI is reporting rising violent crime in cities throughout the Nation, 
with murder rates rising 3.4 percent in 2005. Additionally, the 
preliminary numbers for 2006 show that violent crime is up 3.7 percent 
and murder rates up 1.4 percent when compared to last year's 
preliminary numbers.
  Although the COPS program was re-authorized as part of Department of 
Justice Reauthorization, this bill is critical for several reasons. 
First, it re-establishes our commitment to the hiring program by 
including a separate authorization of $600 million to hire officers to 
engage in community policing, intelligence gathering, and as school 
resource officers. We need more cops on the beat and in our schools, 
and this will help get us there. It also authorizes $350 million per 
year for technology grants, and it includes $200 million per year to 
help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors. Finally, it 
congressionally establishes the COPS office as the entity within the 
Department of Justice to carry out these functions in order to 
eliminate duplication of efforts. The bottom line is that this bill 
keeps faith with our State and local law enforcement officers who put 
their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe from 
crime and terrorism. I would ask all of my colleagues to go ask their 
local police chief or sheriff and ask them if they should support this 
legislation, and I hope that they will because if they did it would be 
passed 100-0.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 368

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``COPS Improvements Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. COPS GRANT IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall 
     carry out grant programs under which the Attorney General 
     makes grants to States, units of local government, Indian 
     tribal governments, other public and private entities, multi-
     jurisdictional or regional consortia, and individuals for the 
     purposes described in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e).'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking the subsection heading text and inserting 
     ``Community Policing and Crime Prevention Grants'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, to increase the 
     number of officers deployed in community-oriented policing'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or train'' after ``pay 
     for'';
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) award grants to hire school resource officers and to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems to combat 
     crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems in and 
     around elementary and secondary schools;'';
       (E) by striking paragraph (9);
       (F) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively;
       (G) by striking paragraph (13);
       (H) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (17) as 
     paragraphs (12) through (15), respectively;
       (I) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (J) in paragraph (15), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
       (K) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) establish and implement innovative programs to 
     reduce and prevent illegal drug manufacturing, distribution, 
     and use, including the manufacturing, distribution, and use 
     of methamphetamine; and
       ``(17) award enhancing community policing and crime 
     prevention grants that meet emerging law enforcement needs, 
     as warranted.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c);
       (4) by striking subsections (h) and (i);
       (5) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as 
     subsections (f) through (i), respectively;
       (6) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Troops-to-Cops Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be 
     used to hire former members of the Armed Forces to serve as 
     career law enforcement officers for deployment in community-
     oriented policing, particularly in communities that are 
     adversely affected by a recent military base closing.
       ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, `former member of 
     the Armed Forces' means a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States who is involuntarily separated from the Armed 
     Forces within the meaning of section 1141 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       ``(d) Community Prosecutors Program.--The Attorney General 
     may make grants under subsection (a) to pay for additional 
     community prosecuting programs, including programs that 
     assign prosecutors to--
       ``(1) handle cases from specific geographic areas; and
       ``(2) address counter-terrorism problems, specific violent 
     crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun, and 
     drug enforcement and quality of life initiatives), and 
     localized violent and other crime problems based on needs 
     identified by local law enforcement agencies, community 
     organizations, and others.

[[Page 2037]]

       ``(e) Technology Grants.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants under subsection (a) to develop and use new 
     technologies (including interoperable communications 
     technologies, modernized criminal record technology, and 
     forensic technology) to assist State and local law 
     enforcement agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their 
     activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime and to 
     train law enforcement officers to use such technologies.'';
       (7) in subsection (f), as so redesignated--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to States, units of 
     local government, Indian tribal governments, and to other 
     public and private entities,'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``define for State and 
     local governments, and other public and private entities,'' 
     and inserting ``establish'';
       (C) in the first sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting 
     ``(including regional community policing institutes)'' after 
     ``training centers or facilities''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Exclusivity.--The Office of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services shall be the exclusive component of the 
     Department of Justice to perform the functions and activities 
     specified in this paragraph.'';
       (8) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``may utilize any component'', and all that follows and 
     inserting ``shall use the Office of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services of the Department of Justice in carrying 
     out this part.'';
       (9) in subsection (h), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a)'' the first place that 
     term appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``in each fiscal year pursuant to 
     subsection (a)'' and inserting ``in each fiscal year for 
     purposes described in paragraph (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (b)'';
       (10) in subsection (i), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     second sentence; and
       (11) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Retention of Additional Officer Positions.--For any 
     grant under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) for hiring 
     or rehiring career law enforcement officers, a grant 
     recipient shall retain each additional law enforcement 
     officer position created under that grant for not less than 
     12 months after the end of the period of that grant, unless 
     the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the retention 
     requirement of a program, project, or activity.''.
       (b) Applications.--Section 1702 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     unless waived by the Attorney General'' after ``under this 
     part shall'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (8); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d).
       (c) Renewal of Grants.--Section 1703 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-2) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1703. RENEWAL OF GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A grant made under this part may be 
     renewed, without limitations on the duration of such renewal, 
     to provide additional funds, if the Attorney General 
     determines that the funds made available to the recipient 
     were used in a manner required under an approved application 
     and if the recipient can demonstrate significant progress in 
     achieving the objectives of the initial application.
       ``(b) No Cost Extensions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     the Attorney General may extend a grant period, without 
     limitations as to the duration of such extension, to provide 
     additional time to complete the objectives of the initial 
     grant award.''.
       (d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 1704 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd-3) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``that would, in the 
     absence of Federal funds received under this part, be made 
     available from State or local sources'' and inserting ``that 
     the Attorney General determines would, in the absence of 
     Federal funds received under this part, be made available for 
     the purpose of the grant under this part from State or local 
     sources''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c).
       (e) Enforcement Actions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1706 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-5) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``REVOCATION OR 
     SUSPENSION OF FUNDING'' and inserting ``ENFORCEMENT 
     ACTIONS''; and
       (B) by striking ``revoke or suspend'' and all that follows 
     and inserting ``take any enforcement action available to the 
     Department of Justice.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     contents of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711) is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 1706 and inserting the 
     following:

``Sec. 1706. Enforcement actions.''.
       (f) Definitions.--Section 1709(1) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``who is a sworn law enforcement officer'' 
     after ``permanent basis''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, including officers for the Amtrak 
     Police Department'' before the period at the end.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(11) of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3793(11)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1,047,119,000'' and 
     inserting ``1,150,000,000''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``3 percent'' and 
     inserting ``5 percent''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Of the funds available for grants under part Q, 
     not less than $600,000,000 shall be used for grants for the 
     purposes specified in section 1701(b), not more than 
     $200,000,000 shall be used for grants under section 1701(d), 
     and not more than $350,000,000 shall be used for grants under 
     section 1701(e).''.
       (h) Purposes.--Section 10002 of the Public Safety 
     Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``development'' and 
     inserting ``use''; and
       (2) in the matter following paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``for a period of 6 years''.
       (i) COPS Program Improvements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 109(b) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3712h(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
     except for the program under part Q of this title'' before 
     the period.
       (2) Law enforcement computer systems.--Section 107 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3712f) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any grant 
     made under part Q of this title.''.

                          ____________________