[Senate Report 106-155]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 163
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    106-155

======================================================================



 
                  STEEL TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

               September 10, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Roth, from the Committee on Finance, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1254]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Finance, to which was referred the bill 
(S. 1254) to establish a comprehensive strategy for the 
elimination of market-distorting practices affecting the global 
steel industry, and for other purposes, having considered 
legislation to address the foreign market-distorting practices 
that have led to a global overcapacity in the steel industry, 
to modify the safeguard provisions under U.S. trade law to 
conform them to the international obligations of the United 
States, to establish an import monitoring program, to instruct 
U.S. representatives to international financial institutions 
with respect to financing for steel-making capacity, and to 
modify the rules governing the suspension of unfair trade 
actions, reports favorably thereon and refers the bill to the 
full Senate with a recommendation that the bill do pass.

                             I. BACKGROUND

    The Finance Committee's consideration of the Steel Trade 
Enforcement Act of 1999 takes place in the context of 
significant economic challenges facing the U.S. steel industry 
and its workers.

              A. Challenges Facing the U.S. Steel Industry

    The current market conditions facing the U.S. steel 
industry are due to a combination of three factors--global 
overcapacity in the steel industry, the collapse of foreign 
demand as a result of the global financial crisis, and the 
dramatic surge of imports into the United States that were sold 
at subsidized rates or at prices below the producer's cost of 
production.

              1. global overcapacity in the steel industry

    The first, and still the most persistent, problem facing 
the U.S. steel industry is the legacy of over 50 years of state 
intervention in domestic steel markets abroad that has led to 
continued overcapacity in the steel industry worldwide. From 
the 1930s on, state support for ``national champions'' in 
certain industries, particularly steel, led to policies 
designed to support the expansion of steel making capacity 
regardless of market conditions.
    Those policies continued along a spectrum from border 
measures, like tariffs and quantitative restraints on imports, 
to heavy government subsidies, through grants and loans at 
below market rates, to outright state ownership of production 
capacity. They also included the toleration of private 
anticompetitive practices and cartel-like behavior in certain 
markets, and policies designed to foster export-led growth. All 
these policies inhibited the market-clearing function of supply 
and demand.
    The net result of those policies has been a continuing glut 
of steel manufacturing capacity in world markets. Despite 
significant changes in attitudes on state intervention in the 
market that have taken place in the last 10 years, and despite 
the privatization of many of the previously state-owned mills, 
the operation of the market--particularly the capital markets 
which serve to siphon capital away from loss-making 
operations--has not eliminated that overhang in capacity. 
Furthermore, the interventions in the market that led to the 
global oversupply in the first place are still being practiced 
by various governments today.

     2. global financial crisis and the collapse in foreign demand

    The second factor that has led to the current challenges 
facing the U.S. steel industry is the collapse of domestic 
demand in Asia and Russia in response to a global financial 
crisis that began in Thailand in July, 1997, and filtered 
through a number of Asian countries before it spread to Russia 
and Latin America. The crisis occurred after several Asian 
countries and Russia underwent massive recessions and devalued 
or depreciated their currencies relative to the U.S. dollar.
    The financial crisis that followed led both domestic and 
foreign investors in those countries to withdraw the capital 
that had primed the pump of economic growth. The financial 
crisis, combined with the continuing recession in Japan, 
sharply reduced global demand for many products, particularly 
steel. That global decline in demand for steel products was 
only partially offset by the continuing strength of the 
American economy, and was, in fact, exacerbated by the strike 
against General Motors in the summer of 1998, which idled the 
world's largest automobile manufacturer for several weeks.
    While world demand for steel remained high into 1998, the 
global overcapacity in the industry deflated prices and 
dampened profits, but did not fundamentally erode the 
competitiveposition of the U.S. steel industry. The collapse of 
demand worldwide, however, exposed the overcapacity in world steel 
markets and led to a sharp decline in world prices. The sharp 
devaluation or depreciation in foreign currencies with respect to the 
U.S. dollar and the continuing strong growth in the United States, 
combined with excess capacity overseas, led to a dramatic surge in 
imports from abroad. The great bulk of those imports were from three 
countries--Japan, Russia, Brazil and South Korea--where past and, in 
several respects, continuing state intervention in the market had led 
to significant excess capacity.

       3. surge in imports sold below cost or at subsidized rates

    The third factor that led to the current conditions in the 
steel industry was the reaction of foreign steel manufacturers 
to eroding domestic demand and pressure, in some instances, to 
maintain production and employment levels. Foreign steel 
manufacturers began shifting production toward the U.S. market, 
selling at prices below their costs of production, according to 
the findings of the Department of Commerce in unfair trade 
actions filed by the U.S. steel industry.
    Those producers also benefited, in certain instances, from 
foreign government subsidies according to the Commerce 
Department. Subsidies have the effect of buffering the subsidy 
recipients from the competitive effects of the collapse in 
demand. In effect, the subsidies permit them to continue to 
sell at prices below their costs without facing the financial 
consequences of those actions.

                       B. Impact on the Industry

    Each of the factors noted above played a significant role 
in the sharp erosion in the competitive position of the U.S. 
industry in 1998. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. industry has 
invested over $50 billion in new technology, the modernization 
of equipment and facilities, and the training of workers. The 
result was a dramatic increase in productivity and a sharp 
improvement in the fortunes of the industry.
    Those changes in the industry were largely driven by the 
expansion of domestic competition from mini-mills operating 
electric arc furnaces and relying on low-cost scrap as a source 
material. As the mini-mills refined their technology and 
steadily expanded into new product lines, the rest of the 
industry was forced to adjust as well. That led to a stronger, 
globally competitive domestic steel industry. It also led to a 
dramatic down-sizing in employment as the number of workers 
required to produce a ton of steel steadily declined with the 
increases in productivity.
    The U.S. industry has also become more closely integrated 
with international markets. That is due both to the importance 
of foreign demand absorbing some of the continuing global 
overcapacity, as well as the increasing reliance on certain 
low-cost foreign manufacturers to produce semi-finished steel 
products for finishing in the United States. In other words, 
the U.S. steel industry had become a major importer of steel in 
its own right.
    In 1997, the industry produced record amounts of steel. 
That steel was shipped principally to domestic consuming 
industries, but certain sectors were exporting growing, albeit 
small, quantities to foreign markets as well. The industry 
continued its plans to invest in new plants and equipment, and 
expand production capacity, based on the positive market 
outlook for growing domestic and foreign demand for steel.
    With the collapse of foreign demand, the dramatic surge in 
imports, and fierce price-cutting by foreign competition, 
particularly in hot-rolled steel products, the U.S. industry, 
however, faced a dramatic erosion in its pricing power and its 
profitability. While the industry continued to ship steel at 
near record levels in 1998, individual operations were forced 
to sell at or significantly below their own costs to meet the 
surge in foreign competition.
    That led to a significant idling of capacity in the United 
States, even after the United Auto Workers strike against 
General Motors was resolved and the company resumed full 
production. The surge in import competition also led to 
significant layoffs and three steel companies have declared 
bankruptcy. While those job losses were not inconsistent with 
the long-term trend in the industry, the impact was 
particularly acute in certain enterprises that faced the 
fiercest competition from abroad.
    Perhaps the most striking difference, however, between the 
United States and certain of its foreign competitors is the 
degree to which they are exposed to the pressure of the capital 
markets. In the United States, the industry must compete for 
capital with other rapidly expanding sectors of the U.S. 
economy, such as the computer software and telecommunications 
sectors. Where foreign steel manufacturers are insulated from 
the pressures of the capital markets by government action or, 
for example, the toleration of a domestic cartel in the 
industry, the foreign manufacturer can continue to produce and 
sell steel under circumstances that would drive an American 
manufacturer out of business. That has the effect of forcing 
the U.S. steel industry to bear a higher share of the burden of 
economic adjustment in the steel industry to market conditions 
like the Asian financial crisis.

                      C. U.S. Government Response

    The U.S. steel industry responded to the dramatic surge in 
below cost sales by filing petitions for relief under the 
antidumping and countervailing duty laws on hot-rolled products 
from Japan, Russia, and Brazil, and on carbon-quality steel 
plate from the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia. The industry also filed unfair trade actions 
against imports of stainless steel products from Belgium, 
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, 
South Africa, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, and cold-rolled 
steel from Japan, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, China, Indonesia, 
South Africa, Slovakia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and 
Venezuela.
    In processing these cases, the Department of Commerce 
relied on the flexibility provided under the unfair trade laws 
to accelerate the investigation of the allegations raised in 
the petitionsas much as possible. In addition, the Department 
worked with the Bureau of Census to accelerate the rate at which import 
information critical to the industry's cases could be made public. The 
Department also adopted a new methodology to account for significant 
currency-driven distortions in dumping margin calculations in an 
attempt to ensure that dumping was not being masked by large currency 
devaluations.
    The filing of the U.S. steel industry's unfair trade 
actions led to a sharp decrease in the imports of products 
subject to the investigation. The Department of Commerce 
ultimately found significant dumping and, in certain instances, 
subsidy margins against the foreign exporters of hot-rolled 
steel and stainless steel sheet and strip. The Department 
issued preliminary determinations with respect to steel plate 
and is still in its preliminary investigation of cold-rolled 
steel. On June 11, in the case of imports of hot-rolled 
products from Japan, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
unanimously found the industry had been injured or threatened 
with material injury by reason of the dumped imports.
    In the course of investigating the allegations raised by 
the industry's petitions, the Department of Commerce also began 
a series of negotiations on suspension agreements. Such 
agreements suspend an unfair trade action in favor of a 
negotiated agreement that normally sets a price floor for 
imports from the companies affected, and, in the case of non-
market economies, may set an overall quantitative limit as 
well. On July 13, 1999, the Department concluded two agreements 
with Russia. In the first of those agreements with Russia, the 
Department negotiated an arrangement that barred entry of 
Russian hot-rolled steel for 6 months and then permitted 
imports subject to significant limitations on prices and 
quantities. The second agreement sharply limited imports of 
other types of steel products from Russia, not just those 
subject to the antidumping investigation. On July 7, 1999, the 
Department finalized suspension agreements with Brazil limiting 
the price and quantity at which hot-rolled steel could be sold 
in the United States.
    The response to the suspension agreements among some 
segments of the U.S. steel industry has been negative. In the 
view of the critics, the Department should have completed the 
investigations and imposed the resulting antidumping and 
countervailing duties on the theory that the margins would be 
so significant that they would close the U.S. market entirely 
to the dumped or subsidized imports. In the critics' view, 
although the agreements sharply limit the dumped and subsidized 
imports, they do not go as far as the law might have gone had 
the cases run their course, and the investment made by private 
parties in litigating the cases was undercut.
    The Administration has also responded to the Asian 
financial crisis and the economic difficulties facing Russian 
with policies designed to restore global economic growth. While 
the policy approach adopted has been subject to ongoing 
scrutiny and considerable criticism, a number of the Asian 
economies that had suffered through the first wave of the 
financial crisis do appear to have resumed economic growth. The 
most notable of these is South Korea, which not coincidentally 
undertook the deepest reforms of its own economy.
    In other words, the actions taken by the administration to 
date have been designed to address two of the three root 
problems facing the U.S. steel industry--the surge in below 
cost sales of foreign steel and the restoration of foreign 
demand. While the administration's policies have not 
accomplished all that the industry would have preferred, 
imports have fallen off sharply and even those U.S. mills 
facing the fiercest initial competition from surging imports 
have begun hiring workers laid off in the midst of the heaviest 
competition from below cost sales of foreign steel.
    What the Administration has not done to date is to adopt a 
comprehensive plan for addressing the more fundamental problem 
facing the industry--that of global overcapacity and the 
foreign government practices that insulated foreign steel 
producers from the capital market pressures faced day-to-day by 
U.S. steel companies.

                        D. Congressional Action

    The onset of the surge in imports led to the introduction 
of a number of legislative proposals. In March 1999, the House 
passed a measure--H.R. 975--that would impose quantitative 
limits on imported steel. Similar legislation--S. 395--had been 
introduced in the Senate by Senator Rockefeller. In the 
interim, imports of foreign steel have fallen to levels below 
those set in these bills, but advocates for the bills insist 
that quantitative limits are needed to ensure against the sort 
of import surge the industry faced in 1997 and 1998.
    Two other significant measures have been introduced in both 
the Senate and House to respond to the import surges facing the 
steel industry. The first would affect the use of the 
safeguards mechanism under section 201 of the Trade Act of 
1974. Section 201 allows the President to impose restrictions 
on imports if the International Trade Commission finds that 
such imports are a substantial cause of serious injury or 
threat thereof to the domestic industry. The statute defines 
``substantial cause'' as ``a cause that is important and not 
less than any other cause.'' This standard is, arguably, more 
stringent than what is required under the World Trade 
Organization (``WTO'') Agreement on Safeguards.
    Although section 201 provides the most direct means under 
the U.S. trade laws to address dramatic surges in imports, 
regardless of whether the products are fairly or unfairly 
traded, the U.S. industry and the steelworkers union have 
generally relied instead on antidumping and countervailing duty 
cases.1 In practice, section 201 has not been widely 
used, in part because of the relatively strict injury test the 
petitioner must satisfy in order to obtain relief and the fact 
that it is in the President's discretion whether to apply 
relief. That said, petitioners have been more successful 
recently in cases involving lamb meat, wheat gluten, and 
broomcorn brooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In 1984, the steel industry sought relief from import surges by 
filing a section 201 case. Although the ITC found injury with respect 
to several products and recommended an increase in tariffs, President 
Reagan rejected the ITC's recommendations and instead sought 
international agreements (so-called ``voluntary restraint agreements'') 
to limit imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lone exception to the steel industry's non-use of 
section 201 this decade has been the December 30, 1998, filing 
of a section 201 action by the steel wire rod industry. In 
response to the dramatic import surges facing the industry and 
the difficulty the industry faced in adjusting economically to 
those surges, the wire rod industry filed for relief under 
section 201 in December 1998. The decision on injury issued on 
May 12, 1999, evenly divided the ITC; however, under the 
statute, that was sufficient to forward a recommendation of 
relief to the President, whose decision is due on August 12, 
1999.
    The second measure that has garnered particular attention 
has been a bill to amend the antidumping and countervailing 
duty laws in several significant respects. The House bill, H.R. 
1505, introduced by Representative English, would modify the 
laws in ways that would, on balance, make it easier to 
establish both dumping, subsidization and injury in such unfair 
trade cases and would reopen a number of questions that were 
considered by the Committee on Finance and the Congress in 
implementing the Uruguay Round antidumping agreement.
    Apart from H.R. 975 and S. 395, which would impose 
quantitative limits on steel imports, most of the other bills 
that have been introduced thus far to address the challenges 
facing the steel industry are primarily aimed at creating 
procedural mechanisms for addressing any renewed surges in 
imports. Significantly, the proposed changes would apply to any 
petitioning industry, not steel alone.
    Where action is, in fact, most needed is in eliminating the 
market-distorting government practices that have resulted in 
the persistent global overcapacity in the steel industry. As 
stated in the President's Report to Congress on steel in 
January of this year:

        [M]any foreign governments continue to view steel 
        production and self-sufficiency in steel as 
        prerequisites to economic development. Foreign steel 
        industries have often been supported through government 
        subsidies to encourage expansion or forestall 
        restructuring.

    Without the elimination of these practices, many foreign 
steel producers will continue to be insulated from the capital 
market pressures that are facing the U.S. industry. Absent the 
elimination of these practices, the industry will face a 
continuing glut of steel making capacity abroad and the 
industry, its workers and the country will face the 
consequences of the past year in steel markets whenever the 
economic cycle turns down again in the future. The Committee on 
Finance's Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 is designed to 
spur the development and implementation of a sustained strategy 
for eliminating the practices of foreign governments that 
continue to support the overcapacity in steel manufacturing 
worldwide.

                        II. SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 contains five 
titles:
    Title I would require the initiation of an investigation by 
the U.S. Trade Representative (``USTR'' or ``Trade 
Representative''), pursuant to the authority granted to the 
Trade Representative under section 301 of the Trade Act of 
1974, to identify those priority foreign market-distorting 
practices that have contributed to the current global 
overcapacity in steel-making capacity. Title I would also 
require the USTR to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
securing the elimination of such practices and the distortive 
effects they have on the international market for steel.
    Title II would modify section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 
to conform the provisions of U.S. law to those of our 
international obligations under the World Trade Organization 
Agreement on Safeguards. Title II would also accelerate the 
procedures for determining whether an industry in the United 
States was suffering serious injury, or the threat thereof, by 
reason of imports and, therefore, entitled to temporary relief 
in order to adjust to new economic conditions.
    Title III would establish a procedure under which 
industries facing an unexpected surge in imports could apply 
for participation in an import monitoring program. Under Title 
III, those industries identified would be entitled to the early 
release of statistical data concerning imports of like 
products.
    Title IV would provide instructions to the U.S. executive 
directors to international financial institutions to use their 
voice and vote and the influence of the United States to 
discourage any financing that would add to the existing global 
oversupply in steel manufacturing capacity. Title IV would also 
direct the executive directors to encourage the privatization 
of state-owned steel mills and encourage the recovery of steel 
demand abroad by promoting policies designed to encourage 
economic growth
    Title V would amend the countervailing duty and antidumping 
laws of the United States to ensure that the administering 
authority, the Secretary of Commerce, must seek the approval of 
the domestic producers and workers before agreeing to any 
settlement of the investigations in the form of a suspension 
agreement.

                  III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL

    The legislation reported by the Finance Committee consists 
of the following provisions:

                         Section 1. Short Title

    Section 1 provides a short title by which the legislation 
may be cited--the ``Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999.''

                          Section 2. Findings

    Section 2 details Congress' findings regarding the 
challenges facing the U.S. steelindustry, emphasizing the need 
for a comprehensive strategy to seek the elimination of the market-
distorting government practices, such as subsidies, state ownership and 
the toleration of anticompetitive practices, that have led to the 
persistent overcapacity in the steel industry worldwide.

                         Section 3. Definitions

    Section 3 provides definitions for some of the terms used 
in this legislation.

     TITLE I--COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF MARKET-
         DISTORTING FACTORS AFFECTING THE GLOBAL STEEL INDUSTRY


    Section 101. Directive to the United States Trade Representative

    Section 101(a) directs the United States Trade 
Representative to initiate, within 45 days of the enactment of 
this Act, an investigation under section 302(b) of the Trade 
Act of 1974 of market-distorting practices that have insulated 
foreign steel producers from competitive pressures and have 
contributed to the investment in, and development of, steel 
manufacturing capacity on terms inconsistent with competitive 
market conditions.
    Section 101(b)(1) directs the Trade Representative to 
identify the priority foreign market-distorting practices that 
have the greatest impact on the U.S. steel industry as targets 
for action under the authorities set out in section 101(d). 
Section 101(b)(2) mandates that the Trade Representative 
annually update and publish in the Federal Register a list of 
the priority foreign market-distorting practices that have the 
greatest impact on the U.S. steel industry as targets for 
further action under title III of the Trade Act of 1974 or any 
other provision of law.
    Section 101(b)(3) requires that, not later than 30 days 
following the annual publication in the Federal Register of the 
priority foreign market-distorting practices required in 
section 101(b)(2), the Trade Representative shall initiate an 
investigation of such practices under section 302(b) of the 
Trade Act of 1974. Such an investigation shall be initiated 
only if the practice is not the subject of any other 
investigation or action under title I of this legislation or 
under title III of the Trade Act of 1974; and the foreign 
government with respect to which a foreign market-distorting 
practice has been identified fails to take steps to eliminate 
the practice. The Trade Representative shall not be required to 
initiate an investigation under section 101(b)(3)(A) if the 
initiation of the investigation would be detrimental to the 
economic interest of the United States.
    Section 101(c)(1) requires the Trade Representative to 
develop a comprehensive strategy for the elimination of the 
market-distorting practices identified in the course of his or 
her investigation and to submit such strategy to the President 
not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act. In developing the comprehensive strategy, section 
101(c)(2) directs the Trade Representative to consider all 
relevant factors, including:
          (A) the market-distorting practices identified in the 
        investigation;
          (B) the impact of foreign market-distorting practices 
        on the U.S. economy generally and on the U.S. steel 
        industry and its workers, and the steel-using 
        industries and their workers specifically;
          (C) the extent to which a foreign country's market-
        distorting practices are prohibited under the trade 
        agreements to which that foreign country is a party;
          (D) the extent to which a foreign country's market-
        distorting practices are prohibited under existing 
        commitments made by that foreign country to an 
        international financial institution;
          (E) the extent to which a foreign government's 
        failure to enforce its antimonopoly law leads to 
        market-distorting practices; and
          (F) the views of the public, the U.S. steel industry 
        and its workers, and steel using industries.
    Section 101(c)(3) requires that the Trade Representative 
hold at least one public hearing on the comprehensive strategy 
and publish in the Federal Register notice of the investigation 
and the public hearing.
    Section 101(d) directs the Trade Representative to include 
in his or her strategy, recommendations for action to address 
the foreign market-distorting practices identified in the 
investigation. The recommendations could include, but are not 
limited to, the following:
          (1) Negotiations on a multilateral or bilateral basis 
        to liberalize trade in steel products worldwide, 
        including--
                  (A) the elimination of tariffs, quantitative 
                restraints, licensing requirements or any other 
                barrier to imports of steel products that have 
                the effect of insulating foreign steel 
                producers from competition;
                  (B) the elimination of any export or 
                production subsidies conferred by foreign 
                governments on steel producers, including the 
                elimination of the practice of providing 
                capital or input materials at below-market 
                rates or other practices that have the effect 
                of distorting the terms of trade or encouraging 
                investment in steel manufacturing capacity on 
                terms inconsistent with competitive market 
                conditions;
                  (C) the elimination of restrictions on 
                capital movements or investment that allow 
                governments to insulate foreign manufacturers 
                from the competitive effects of a functioning 
                global capital market or otherwise permit such 
                governments to direct financing to foreign 
                steel manufacturers regardless of market 
                conditions;
                  (D) the privatization of any state-owned 
                steel manufacturing capacity where the 
                government ownership permits the manufacturer 
                to operate on terms inconsistent with 
                competitive market conditions; and
                  (E) the elimination of administrative 
                guidance by a foreign government to its steel 
                producers that leads to market distorting 
                practices or prevents the removal of market-
                distorting practices.
          (2) Initiation of action under section 201 of the 
        Trade Act of 1974 in order to redress serious injury to 
        the industry due to a recurrence of surges in imports. 
        The Trade Representative shall, where appropriate, 
        recommend that the President initiate such an action.
          (3) Use of the authority available to the President 
        under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In 
        determining whether to recommend such action, the Trade 
        Representative shall assess the impact on the steel 
        industry of any competitive devaluations or significant 
        depreciations in foreign currencies against the dollar.
          (4) Initiation of countervailing duty actions under 
        title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. Such an action 
        would help address market distorting subsidies, whether 
        to exports or to production, and would penalize the use 
        of subsidies that encourage investment in plant and 
        capacity that would not be made under competitive 
        market conditions.
          (5) Initiation of antidumping actions under title VII 
        of the Tariff Act of 1930. Such an action would help in 
        response to--
                  (A) below cost sales of products into the 
                United States where the government of the 
                foreign producer has, through a combination of 
                market access barriers, subsidies, or mandating 
                or encouraging financing of foreign steel 
                production, encouraged the construction, 
                maintenance, or expansion of steel 
                manufacturing capacity on terms or under 
                circumstances that are inconsistent with normal 
                competitive market conditions; and
                  (B) sales in the United States at prices 
                below the home market price of the foreign 
                exporter where the failure of markets to 
                arbitrage the difference in prices reflects 
                government intervention in the market designed 
                to insulate the foreign producers from 
                competition.
          (6) Initiation of an action under section 302 of the 
        Trade Act of 1974. Such an action could be initiated in 
        response to any action by a foreign government that 
        violates a trade agreement to which the United States 
        is a party or in response to any foreign government 
        act, policy or practice that has the effect of 
        encouraging the construction, maintenance, or expansion 
        of steel manufacturing capacity on terms or under 
        conditions that are inconsistent with normal 
        competitive market conditions.
          (7) Consideration by the Attorney General or the 
        Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission of evidence of 
        anticompetitive behavior in foreign markets that has 
        the effect of insulating foreign steel producers from 
        competitive pressures of the marketplace and leads to 
        adverse impacts in the U.S. market. Anticompetitive 
        behavior includes private anticompetitive behavior, 
        such as cartelization; governmental toleration of 
        anticompetitive behavior; and governmental action that 
        encourages, requires or prevents the elimination of 
        anticompetitive behavior.
          (8) Any other action the Trade Representative deems 
        appropriate.
    Section 101(e) directs the Trade Representative to 
describe, as part of the comprehensive strategy, the resources 
necessary to implement actions recommended in the comprehensive 
strategy. The Committee intends that the resource needs 
identified in the comprehensive strategy will be considered by 
the Committee on Finance in the Senate and the Committee on 
Ways and Means in the House of Representative in the 
committees' consideration of authorization legislation for the 
relevant agencies identified in the strategy.

     Section 102. Appointment of Coordinator and Establishment of 
                       Interagency Working Group

    Section 102(a) directs the USTR to appoint one Deputy Trade 
Representative to serve as the coordinator of the investigation 
to identify foreign market-distorting practices and of the 
development of the comprehensive strategy for eliminating such 
practices.
    Section 102(b) directs the President to establish an 
interagency working group, composed of representatives from the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, Treasury, and Labor, 
the National Economic Council and the National Security 
Council, and such other departments and agencies as the 
President deems appropriate, to assist the Trade Representative 
in the development and the implementation of the comprehensive 
strategy.

          Section 103. Consultation and Reporting Requirements

    Section 103 sets forth certain consultation and reporting 
requirements. Section 103(a) requires the Trade Representative 
to consult on a bi-monthly basis with the Senate Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee during the 
course of the investigation and to consult regularly thereafter 
regarding the implementation of the strategy. Section 103(b) 
directs the Trade Representative to submit the comprehensive 
strategy report to the two congressional committees not later 
than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     Section 104. Investigations by International Trade Commission

    Section 104(a) directs the Trade Representative to request 
that the International Trade Commission initiate an 
investigation under section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
subject to such deadlines as the Trade Representative may 
establish, and to provide such economic analyses and reports as 
may be necessary to the investigation and to the development of 
the comprehensive strategy.
    Section 104(b) directs the President to make available to 
USTR such resources from the other agencies and departments of 
the executive branch as the USTR may deem necessary to conduct 
the investigation and develop the strategy. The resources to be 
made available to the Trade Representative should include the 
overseas reporting capabilities of the Foreign Service, the 
United States and Foreign Commercial Service, and the attaches 
of the Department of the Treasury.

    TITLE II--MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 201 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974

    Title II makes certain modifications to chapter 1 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974 (the ``1974 Act''). This law is 
popularly known as ``section 201,'' the ``Escape Clause'' and 
as the ``Safeguards Law.'' The Committee's express intent is to 
draw section 201 into conformity with the World Trade 
Organization Agreement on Safeguards (the ``WTO Safeguards 
Agreement'') and that, as modified, section 201 should be 
interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the 
Agreement.

Determining causation and injury

    Section 201(a) of the Act conforms the current standard of 
causation in section 201(a) of the 1974 Act to reflect the 
standard in the WTO Safeguards Agreement. The WTO standard 
requires that imports ``cause or threaten to cause serious 
injury,'' while the current standard of causation in U.S. law 
requires that imports be a ``substantial cause of serious 
injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry.'' This 
bill employs the term ``cause,'' so as to conform the causation 
standard in section 201(a) of the 1974 Act with the WTO 
Safeguards Agreement. An identical conforming change is also 
made in this legislation to section 202(b)(1)(A) of the 1974 
Act.
    Section 201(b)(2) amends the Safeguards Law to clarify that 
the term ``cause'' means a cause that is important and 
contributes significantly to the serious injury to the domestic 
industry, but is not necessarily the most important cause. This 
clarification is made by amending section 202(b)(1)(B) of the 
1974 Act. The intent of this provision is to conform the 
definition of causation in the Safeguards Law with that 
required by Article 4 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement.
    Section 201(b)(3)(A) amends section 202(c)(1)(A) of the 
1974 Act to include additional factors that the Commission must 
consider in determining whether a petitioner has suffered 
serious injury or the threat of serious injury. Specifically, 
the provision amends section 202(c)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act to 
require the Commission to consider, among other factors, 
changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, 
capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment in 
determining whether there is serious injury. These factors are 
derived from Article 4(2)(a) of the WTO Safeguards Agreement.
    Section 201(b)(3)(B) amends 202(c)(1)(B) of the 1974 Act to 
require the Commission to take into account certain additional 
factors in determining whether there exists the threat of 
serious injury. Specifically, this provision requires the 
Commission to consider, among other things, foreign production 
capacity, foreign inventories, the level of demand in third 
country markets, and the availability of other export markets 
to absorb any additional exports.
    Section 201(b)(3)(C) amends section 202(c)(1)(C) of the 
1974 Act to require that the Commission consider certain 
additional factors in determining whether imports are a cause 
of serious injury. Specifically, the provision requires that 
the Commission consider the rate, amount, and timing of the 
increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and 
relative terms, including whether there has been a substantial 
increase in imports over a short period of time and the share 
of the domestic market taken by increased imports. The purpose 
of this section is to ensure that factors associated with an 
import surge are taken into account in determining whether 
imports are a cause of serious injury.
    Section 201(b)(3)(D) amends section 202(c) of the 1974 Act 
to provide that the Commission, in making its determination of 
serious injury, or the threat thereof, may reduce the weight 
accorded to the data for the period after the petition has been 
filed or the request has been made, if there has been any 
change in the volume of imports that has occurred since that 
time.
    It is the Committee's intent that, in determining whether 
to provide relief and, if so, in what amount, the President 
will continue the practice of taking into account relief 
provided under other provisions of law, such as the antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, which may alter the amount of 
relief necessary under section 203 of the 1974 Act.

Provisional relief

    Section 201(b)(4) makes certain changes regarding the 
granting of provisional relief. First, the provision amends 
section 202(d)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act to expand the availability 
of provisional relief to investigations initiated at the 
request of the President or the Congress. Under current law, 
provisional relief is available only when the petition is filed 
by the domestic industry. Second, this provision would 
specifically enumerate import surges as being a relevant factor 
in determining whether critical circumstances are found and 
provisional relief is warranted.
    Third, this provision shortens the time available for 
deciding on provisional relief. Specifically, the time for the 
Commission to make its determination is reduced from 60 days 
to45 days. In addition, the time available for the President to 
determine whether to follow a critical circumstances finding of the 
Commission is reduced from 30 to 20 days. As a result, this legislation 
would shorten the total time frame for triggering provisional relief 
from 90 to 65 days.

Determinations by the President

    Section 201(c)(1) makes certain modifications to section 
203(a) of the 1974 Act relating to the actions of the President 
after receiving an affirmative finding from the Commission. 
First, the provision amends section 203(a) of the 1974 Act to 
direct the President to take all appropriate and feasible 
action within his power which the President determines will 
facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive 
adjustment to import competition, unless such actions have an 
adverse impact on the United States substantially out of 
proportion to the benefits of such action. Second, in 
determining what remedy to impose, the provision would direct 
the President to give substantially greater weight to the 
economic and social costs which would be incurred by taxpayers, 
communities, and workers if import relief were not granted, 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with the overall economic 
interest of the United States.
    In determining whether to provide relief and the amount of 
that relief, the President should continue the practice of 
taking into account relief provided under other provisions of 
law, such as the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. 
Taking into account such relief may alter the amount of relief 
necessary under section 203 of the 1974 Act.

Action by Congress

    Section 201(c)(1) makes certain modifications to section 
203(a) of the 1974 Act relating to the time available to 
Congress to act on an affirmative finding by the Commission. 
Under current law, if the Commission makes an affirmative 
finding, but the President decides to take no action or to take 
an action that differs from the Commission's recommendation, 
Congress has 90 days to enact the Commission's recommendation 
through the passage of a joint resolution. This legislation 
amends section 203(c) of the 1974 Act by shortening the period 
available to Congress to pass such a joint resolution from 90 
to 60 days.

                TITLE III--TIMELY RELEASE OF IMPORT DATA

    Title III includes a number of provisions to improve the 
ability of U.S. companies to monitor imports and to obtain the 
early release of data regarding such imports. The purpose of 
these provisions is to allow U.S. companies to assess more 
quickly whether there is a surge in imports of a particular 
product.
    Section 301 amends section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to 
establish a statutory procedure that would enable domestic 
industries or representatives of domestic industries to request 
that the President consider whether import monitoring is 
appropriate, and if it is, to direct him to request monitoring 
and data collection by the ITC. The requesting party would have 
to allege that the item is being imported in such increased 
quantities as to cause serious injury, or threat thereof, to 
the domestic industry.
    Section 302 provides the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget with the authority to grant an exception 
to the publication dates established for the release of data on 
United States international trade in goods and services in 
order to permit public access to preliminary international 
trade import data. Section 302 requires the Director to notify 
Congress of the early release of data.
    Section 303 directs the Secretaries of Treasury and 
Commerce and the International Trade Commission to establish a 
suffix or other indicator to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States for merchandise that is subject to 
antidumping or countervailing duty orders or subject to an 
action by the President pursuant to section 201 or section 406 
of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision would allow for better 
tracking of imports that are subject to such orders.
    Section 304(a) directs the Secretary of Commerce to monitor 
imports on a monthly basis for import surges and potential 
unfair trade through the year 2000. Products to be monitored 
shall be determined by the Secretary of Commerce based on the 
percentage increase in imports, the volume or value of imports, 
as appropriate, the level of import penetration and any other 
factor the Secretary considers necessary. The Act provides that 
the products to be monitored shall include steel mill products 
and other import-sensitive products, so long as such products 
meet the necessary criteria established by the Secretary.
    Section 304(b) directs the Secretary of Commerce to submit 
reports to Congress summarizing the monitoring activities under 
this section and identifying products to be monitored in the 
next calendar year. The Secretary of Commerce is also directed 
to determine whether trade conditions during the calendar year 
1999 merit extending the import monitoring program beyond the 
program's scheduled expiration at the end of calendar year 
2000.
    Section 304(c) directs the Secretary of Commerce to 
establish a ``Steel Import Monitoring and Enforcement Support 
Center'' within the Department of Commerce. The purpose of this 
center is to monitor imports of steel mill products under this 
section and to monitor and investigate imports of steel mill 
products as may be required pursuant to section 301 of the Act.

             TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

    Section 401 of the Act requires the Secretary of the 
Treasury to instruct the U.S. Executive Directors of each 
international financial institution--such as the World Bank and 
the International Monetary Fund--to use aggressively the voice 
and vote of the United States to:
           vigorously oppose loans or other financial 
        assistance that would be used to provide financial 
        assistance to the steel industry in any way that would 
        encourage the expansion of existing steel-making 
        capacity;
           vigorously promote policies to encourage the 
        privatization of steel mills that remain in state 
        ownership; and
           vigorously promote policies that encourage 
        immediate economic growth and the resumption and 
        increase in the domestic demand for steel.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the involvement 
of the United States in the international financial 
institutions does not contribute to the maintenance or 
enactment of market-distorting practices that have led to a 
persistent overcapacity in global steel capacity.

                     TITLE V--SUSPENSION AGREEMENTS

    Section 501 of the Act amends section 704(d) and 734(d) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930 to require the Secretary of Commerce 
first to obtain approval from the domestic producers or workers 
(who account for more than 50 percent of the production of the 
domestic like product produced by those expressing an opinion 
on the agreement) before entering into any agreement suspending 
a pending antidumping or countervailing duty investigation. 
Such agreements are based on commitment by foreign producers 
with respect to price (or, in cases involving nonmarket 
economies or subsidy allegations, both price and quantity) as 
an alternative means of eliminating the injurious effects of 
dumped or subsidized imports. Section 501 allows the Secretary 
to enter into such agreements, where such domestic producer or 
worker support is not forthcoming, only if the Secretary 
determined that the failure to enter into such an agreement 
would undermine the national security interests of the United 
States or pose an extraordinary threat to the economy of the 
United States.

                        IV. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    The Committee considered the legislation in the form of an 
original bill on June 16, 1999, and ordered it reported 
favorably on the basis of a recorded vote.

                       V. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with paragraph 7(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following statements are made 
concerning the roll call votes in the Committee's consideration 
of the Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999.

                      A. Motion to Report the Bill

    The Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 was ordered 
favorably reported by a roll call vote of 9 yeas and 2 nays on 
June 16, 1999. The vote, with a quorum present, was as follows 
(proxy votes are not counted in the total vote on a motion to 
order a bill reported):
    Yeas.--Senators Roth, Chafee, Grassley, Hatch, Murkowski, 
Lott (proxy), Jeffords (proxy), Moynihan, Baucus, Breaux 
(proxy), Conrad (proxy), Graham, Bryan (proxy), Kerrey (proxy) 
and Robb.
    Nays.--Nickles (proxy), Gramm, Mack (proxy) and 
Rockefeller.

                         B. Votes on Amendments

    (1) An amendment by Senator Baucus to add to Title I a 
requirement that, once the comprehensive strategy is completed 
and reported to the Congress, the Congress would have 30 days 
to pass a resolution of disapproval on that strategy failed by 
voice vote.
    Present.--Senators Roth, Chafee, Grassley, Gramm, Mack, 
Thompson, Moynihan, Baucus, Rockefeller, Bryan and Robb.
    (2) An amendment by Senator Gramm to strike Title II of the 
Act failed by a vote of 5 yeas and 14 nays.
    Yeas.--Senators Chafee, Murkowski, Nickles (proxy), Gramm, 
and Mack (proxy).
    Nays.--Senators Roth, Grassley, Hatch, Lott (proxy), 
Jeffords (proxy), Moynihan, Baucus (proxy), Rockefeller, Breaux 
(proxy), Conrad (proxy), Graham, Bryan (proxy), Kerrey (proxy) 
and Robb.
    (3) An amendment by Senators Moynihan and Hatch that would 
amend section 704 (countervailing duty law) and 731 
(antidumping law) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to require majority 
domestic producer or worker support before the Administration 
can conclude agreements suspending ongoing investigation, 
subject to an exception if the President determines that 
failure to enter into such an agreement would undermine the 
national security of the United States or pose an extraordinary 
threat to the economy of the United States, passed by a vote of 
11 to 8.
    Yeas.--Senators Roth, Hatch, Murkowski, Jeffords, Moynihan, 
Baucus, Rockefeller, Breaux, Conrad, Kerrey (proxy) and Robb.
    Nays.--Senators Chafee, Grassley, Nickles (proxy), Gramm, 
Mack, Thompson, Graham (proxy) and Bryan.

                          VI. BUDGETARY IMPACT


                         A. Committee Estimates

    In compliance with sections 308 and 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and paragraph 11(a) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following 
statement is made concerning the estimated budget effects of 
the bill.
     CBO estimates that implementing S. 1254 would cost 
the federal government between $500,000 and $1 million in 
fiscal year 2000 and less than $500,000 each year thereafter. 
On the revenue side, the bill could result in either an 
increase or a decrease in customs duties collected on imports. 
CBO, however, has no basis for predicting the impact of the 
bill on revenues and, therefore, cannot estimate the net 
revenue impact of this bill.

                B. Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures


                          1. Budget Authority

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1) of the Budget Act the 
Committee states that the Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 
involves no new or increased budget authority.

                          2. Tax Expenditures

    In accordance with section 308(a)(2) of the Budget Act, the 
Committee states that the provisions of the Steel Trade 
Enforcement Act of 1999 will result in no changes in tax 
expenditures over the period fiscal years 1999-2009.

            C. Consultation With Congressional Budget Office

    In accordance with section 403 of the Budget Act, the 
Committee advises that the Congressional Budget Office has 
submitted the following statement on the budgetary impact of 
the Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 21, 1999.
Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed closed cost estimate for the S. 1254, 
Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The principal CBO staff contacts are 
Hester Grippando (for revenues), and John Righter (for 
Spending).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

S. 1254--Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999

    Summary: The Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 would 
direct federal agencies to increase their monitoring activities 
of steel imports and would broaden the conditions under which 
the President could take action against injurious imports. 
Subject to appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO estimates 
that implementing this bill would cost the federal government 
close to $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and less than $500,000 
each year thereafter. That estimate would cover administrative 
costs of the International Trade Commission (ITC), the United 
States Trade Representative (USTR), and the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice. The bill is likely to affect collections 
of customs duties, which a recorded in the budget as 
governmental receipts. However, CBO finds no basis to estimate 
this revenue impact. Since the bill could affect revenues, pay-
as-you-go procedures would apply.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. The bill 
would impose a private-sector mandate on importers by 
broadening the conditions under which the U.S. Government could 
impose trade restrictions. However, CBO has no basis for 
estimating the cost of this mandate.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 1254 would 
affect both spending subject to appropriation and receipt 
(i.e., revenues).

Spending subject to appropriation

    S. 1254 would require that the USTR initiate an 
investigation of the anticompetitive practices of foreign 
governments in the steel market. The USTR would have six months 
to develop and submit to the President and the Congress a 
comprehensive strategy for eliminating the anticompetitive 
practices uncovered in its investigation. The bill also would 
require the USTR to annually update and publish a list of the 
anticompetitive practices that have the greatest impact on the 
United States steel industry and that will be targeted for 
further action. The bill would require that other agencies, 
including the International Trade Commission and the 
Departments of Commerce, and Justice, provide technical 
assistance to USTR. In addition, the bill would establish a 
center within the Department of Commerce to monitor and 
investigate imports of steel mill products. Based on 
information from the Administration, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 1254 would cost the federal government between 
$500,000 and $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and less than 
$500,000 each year thereafter.

Revenues

    The bill would amend sections 201 through 203 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, which allow the President to place restrictions on 
imports if the International Trade Commission finds that such 
imports are threatening or causing serious injury to U.S. 
domestic industry. Under current law, in order for a surge of 
imports to be considered a threat or a cause of serious injury 
to a domestic industry, ITC must determine that no other 
factors are threatening or causing more significant injury to 
that industry. This bill would amend the Trade Act of 1974 so 
that imports would no longer need to be the most important 
threat or cause of injury to a domestic industry in order for 
ITC to make a determination of injury.
    The bill would likely increase the number of favorable 
decisions by ITC on petitions by domestic industries seeking 
relief from imports under the Trade Act of 1974. That act 
authorizes the President to take varied steps to address import 
injury, including imposing quotas and raising tariffs. 
Depending on the course of action taken by the President, 
government revenues--that is, the amount of customs duties--
could increase or decrease. CBO has no basis for predicting 
such Presidential actions and thus cannot estimate the revenue 
impact of this bill.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Enacting 
S. 1254 could affect receipts, but CBO has no basis for 
estimating the amount of any such change.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would not affect the budget of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would 
broaden the conditions under which the U.S. Government could 
impose trade restrictions on imports that are found to 
seriously harm or threaten domestic production of competing or 
similar goods. Any trade restrictions resulting from this 
bill--such as traffics, quotas, or import licenses--would 
impose mandates on importers of affected items. Those mandates 
would impose costs on the private sector, but CBO cannot 
predict the incidence of trade restrictions resulting from the 
new conditions defined in this bill and thus has no basis for 
estimating those costs.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Hester Grippando 
(Revenues), Sunita D'Monte, John Righter, and Mark Hadley. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Keith Mattrick.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis; G. Thomas Woodword, Assistant 
Director for Tax Analysis.

               V. REGULATORY IMPACT AND UNFUNDED MANDATES


                          A. Regulatory Impact

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
statement concerning the regulatory impact of the Steel Trade 
Enforcement Act of 1999.

                1. impact on individuals and businesses

    The Committee states that this Act will not involve any new 
regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses. The Committee 
states, however, that this Act would broaden the conditions 
under which the U.S. Government could impose trade restrictions 
on imports that are found to seriously harm or threaten 
domestic production of competing or similar goods. Any trade 
restrictions resulting from this bill--such as tariffs, quotas, 
or import licenses--would have an impact on importers and 
consumers of affected items.

              2. impact on personal privacy and paperwork

    The Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 will have no impact 
on personal privacy. Some of its provisions require the filing 
of certain information by businesses with the U.S. Government 
in order to demonstrate eligibility for certain programs.

                          B. Unfunded Mandates

    This information is provided in accordance with section 423 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4). The Committee on Finance has reviewed the provisions of the 
Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999 as approved by the 
Committee on June 16, 1999. In accordance with the requirements 
of Pub. L. No. 104-4, the Committee has determined that the Act 
contains no intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the UMRA 
and would not affect the budgets of state, local or tribal 
governments.

       VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                          TRADE ACT OF 1974

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



       TITLE II--RELIEF FROM INJURY CAUSED BY IMPORT COMPETITION

    CHAPTER 1--POSITIVE ADJUSTMENT BY INDUSTRIES INJURED BY IMPORTS


SEC. 201. ACTION TO FACILITATE POSITIVE ADJUSTMENT TO IMPORT 
                    COMPETITION.

    (a) Presidential Action.--If the United States 
International Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to in this 
chapter as the ``Commission'') determines under section 202(b) 
that an article is being imported into the United States in 
such increased quantities [as to be a substantial cause of 
serious injury, or the threat thereof,], absolute or relative 
to domestic production, and under such conditions, as to cause 
or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry 
producing an article like or directly competitive with the 
imported article, the President, in accordance with this 
chapter, shall take all appropriate and feasible action within 
his power which the President determines will facilitate 
efforts by the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment 
to import competition and provide greater economic and social 
benefits than costs.

SEC. 202. INVESTIGATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY 
                    COMMISSION.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) Investigations and Determinations by Commission.--
          (1)(A) Upon the filing of a petition under subsection 
        (a), the request of the President of the Trade 
        Representative, the resolution of either the Committee 
        on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives or 
        the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or on its own 
        motion, the Commission shall promptly make an 
        investigation to determine whether an article is being 
        imported into the United States in such increased 
        quantities [as to be a substantial cause of serious 
        injury, or the threat thereof,], absolute or relative 
        to domestic production, and under such conditions, as 
        to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the 
        domestic industry producing an article like or directly 
        competitive with the imported article.
          [(B) For purposes of this section, the term 
        ``substantial cause'' means a cause which is important 
        and not less than any other cause.]
          (B) In this section, the term ``cause'' means a cause 
        that is important and contributes significantly to the 
        serious injury to the domestic industry, but is not 
        necessarily the most important cause.
          (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
        Commission shall make the determination under paragraph 
        (1) within 120 days (180 days if the petition alleges 
        that critical circumstances exist) after the date on 
        which the petition is filed, the request or resolution 
        is received, or the motion is adopted, as the case may 
        be.
          (B) If before the 100th day after a petition is filed 
        under subsection (a)(1) the Commission determines that 
        the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, the 
        Commission shall make the determination under paragraph 
        (1) within 150 days (210 days if the petition alleges 
        that critical circumstances exist) after the date 
        referred to in subparagraph (A).
          (3) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
        commencement of any proceeding under this subsection in 
        the Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable 
        time thereafter, hold public hearings at which the 
        Commission shall afford interested parties and 
        consumers an opportunity to be present, to present 
        evidence, to comment on the adjustment plan, if any, 
        submitted under subsection (a), to respond to the 
        presentations of other parties and consumers, and 
        otherwise to be heard.
    (c) Factors Applied in Making Determinations.--
          (1) In making determinations under subsection (b), 
        the Commission shall take into account all economic 
        factors which it considers relevant, including (but not 
        limited to)--
                  [(A) with respect to serious injury--
                          (i) the significant idling of 
                        productive facilities in the domestic 
                        industry,
                          (ii) the inability of a significant 
                        number of firms to carry out domestic 
                        production operations at a reasonable 
                        level of profit, and
                          (iii) significant unemployment of 
                        underemployment within the domestic 
                        industry;]
                  (A) with respect to serious injury, change in 
                the level of sales, production, productivity, 
                capacity utilization, profits and losses and 
                employment, including--
                          (i) the significant idling of 
                        productive facilities in the domestic 
                        industry,
                          (ii) the inability of a significant 
                        number of firms to carry out domestic 
                        production operations at a reasonable 
                        level of profit, and
                          (iii) significant unemployment or 
                        underemployment within the domestic 
                        industry;
                  (B) with respect to threat of serious 
                injury--
                          (i) a decline in sales or market 
                        share, a higher and growing inventory 
                        (whether maintained by domestic 
                        producers, importers, wholesalers, or 
                        retailers), and a downward trend in 
                        production, profits, wages, 
                        productivity, or employment (or 
                        increasing underemployment) in the 
                        domestic industry,
                          (ii) the extent to which firms in the 
                        domestic industry are unable to 
                        generate adequate capital to finance 
                        the modernization of their domestic 
                        plants and equipment, or are unable to 
                        maintain existing levels of ex-penditures 
                        for research and development,
                          (iii) the extent to which the United 
                        States market is the focal point for 
                        the diversion of exports of the article 
                        concerned by reason of restraints on 
                        exports of such article to, or on 
                        imports of such article into, third 
                        country markets[; and], and
                          (iv) foreign production capacity, 
                        foreign inventories, the level of 
                        demand in third country markets, and 
                        the availability of other export 
                        markets to absorb any additional 
                        exports; and
                  [(C) with respect to substantial cause, an 
                increase in imports (either actual or relative 
                to domestic production) and a decline in the 
                proportion of the domestic market supplied by 
                domestic producers.]
                  (C) with respect to cause--
                          (i) the rate, amount, and timing of 
                        the increase in imports of the product 
                        concerned in absolute and relative 
                        terms, including whether there has been 
                        a substantial increase in imports over 
                        a short period of time, and
                          (ii) the share of the domestic market 
                        taken by increased imports.
          [(2) In making determinations under subsection (b), 
        the Commission shall--
                  [(A) consider the condition of the domestic 
                industry over the course of the relevant 
                business cycle, but may not aggregate the 
                causes of declining demand associated with a 
                recession or economic downturn in the United 
                States economy into a single cause of serious 
                injury or threat of injury; and
                  [(B) examine factors other than imports which 
                may be a cause of serious injury, or threat of 
                serious injury or threat of domestic industry.
        [The Commission shall include the results of its 
        examination under subparagraph (B) in the report 
        submitted by the Commission to the President under 
        subsection (e).]
          (2) In making determination under subsection (b), the 
        Commission shall--
                  (A) consider the condition of the domestic 
                industry over the course of the relevant 
                business cycle, but may not aggregate the 
                causes of declining demand associated with a 
                recession or economic downturn in the United 
                States economy into a single cause of serious 
                injury or threat of injury; and
                  (B) examine factors other than imports which 
                may cause or threaten to cause serious injury 
                to the domestic industry.
The Commission shall include the results of its examination 
under subparagraph (B) in the report submitted by the 
Commission to the President under subsection (e).
          (3) In making determinations under subsection (b), 
        the Commission shall consider whether any change in the 
        volume of imports that has occurred since a petition 
        under subsection (a) was filed or a request under 
        subsection (b) was made is related to the pendency of 
        the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce 
        the weight accorded to the data for the period after the 
        petition under subsection (a) was filed or the request under 
        subsection (b) was made in making its determination of serious 
        injury, or the threat thereof.
                  (A) consider the condition of the domestic 
                industry over the course of the relevant 
                business cycle, but may not aggregate the 
                causes of declining demand associated with a 
                recession or economic downturn in the United 
                States economy into a single cause of serious 
                injury or threat of injury; and
                  (B) examine factors other than imports which 
                may be a cause of serious injury, or threat of 
                serious injury, to the domestic industry.
        The Commission shall include the results of its 
        examination under subparagraph (B) in the report 
        submitted by the Commission to the President under 
        subsection (e).
          [(3)] (4) The presence or absence of any factor which 
        the Commission Is required to evaluate in subparagraphs 
        (A) [and (B)], (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) is not 
        necessarily dispositive of whether an article is being 
        imported into the United States in such increased 
        quantities as to [be a substantial cause of serious 
        injury, or the threat thereof,] cause or threaten to 
        cause serious injury to the domestic industry.
          [(4)] (5) For purposes of subsection (b), in 
        determining the domestic industry producing an article 
        like or directly competitive with an imported article, 
        the Commission--
                  (A) to the extent information is available, 
                shall, in the case of a domestic producer which 
                also imports, treat as part of such domestic 
                industry only its domestic production;
                  (B) may, in the case of a domestic producer 
                which produces more than one article, treat as 
                part of such domestic industry only that 
                portion or subdivision of the producer which 
                produces the like or directly competitive 
                article; and
                  (C) may, in case of one or more domestic 
                producers which produce a like or directly 
                competitive article in a major geographic area 
                of the United States and whose production 
                facilities in such area for such article 
                constitute a substantial portion of the 
                domestic industry in the United States and 
                primarily serve the market in such area, and 
                where the imports are concentrated in such 
                area, treat as such domestic industry only that 
                segment of the production located in such area.
          [(5)] (6) In the course of any proceeding under this 
        subsection, the Commission shall investigate any factor 
        which in its judgment may be contributing to increased 
        imports of the article under investigation. Whenever in 
        the course of its investigation the Commission has 
        reason to believe that the increased imports are 
        attributable in part circumstances which come within 
        the purview of subtitles A and B of title VII or 
        section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, or other 
        remedial provisions of law, the Commission shall 
        promptly notify the appropriate agency so that such 
        action may be taken as is otherwise authorized by such 
        provisions of law.
          [(6)] (7) For purposes of this section:
                  (A)(i) The term ``domestic industry'' means, 
                with respect to an article, the producers as a 
                whole of the like or directly competitive 
                articles or those producers whose collective 
                production of the like or directly competitive 
                article constitutes a major proportion of the 
                total domestic production of such article.
                  (ii) The term ``domestic industry'' includes 
                producers located in the United States insular 
                possessions.
                  (B) The term ``significant idling of 
                productive facilities'' includes the closing of 
                plants or the underutilization of production 
                capacity.
                  (C) The term ``serious injury'' means a 
                significant overall impairment in the position 
                of a domestic industry.
                  (D) The term ``threat of serious injury'' 
                means serious injury that is clearly imminent.
    (d) Provisional Relief.--
          (1)(A) An entity representing a domestic industry 
        that produces a perishable agricultural product or 
        citrus product that is like or directly competitive 
        with an imported perishable agricultural product or 
        citrus product may file a request with the Trade 
        Representative for the monitoring of imports of that 
        product under subparagraph (B). Within 21 days after 
        receiving the request, the Trade Representative shall 
        determine if--
                  (i) the imported product is a perishable 
                agricultural product or citrus product; and
                  (ii) there is a reasonable indication that 
                such product is being imported into the United 
                States in such increased quantities as to [be, 
                or likely to be, a substantial cause of serious 
                injury, or the threat thereof,] cause, or be 
                likely to cause or threaten to cause, or be 
                likely to threaten to cause serious injury to 
                such domestic industry.
          (B) If the determinations under subparagraph (A)(i) 
        and (ii) are affirmative, the Trade Representative 
        shall request, under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act 
        of 1930, the Commission to monitor and investigate the 
        imports concerned for a period not to exceed 2 years. 
        The monitoring and investigation may include the 
        collection and analysis of information that would 
        expedite an investigation under subsection (b).
          (C) If a petition filed under subsection (a)--
                  (i) alleges injury from imports of a 
                perishable agricultural product or citrus 
                product that has been, on the date the 
                allegation is included in the petition, subject 
                to monitoring by the Commission under 
                subparagraph (B) for not less than 90 days; and
                  (ii) requests that provisional relief by 
                provided under this subsection with respect to 
                such imports;
        the Commission shall, not later than the 21st day after 
        the day on which the request was filed, make a 
        determination, on the basis of available information, 
        whether increased imports (either actual or relative to 
        domestic production) of the perishable agricultural 
        product or citrus product are [a substantial cause of 
        serious injury, or the threat thereof,] causing or 
        threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic 
        industry producing alike or directly competitive 
        perishable product or citrus product and whether either--
                  (I) the serious injury is likely to be 
                difficult to repair by reason of perishability 
                of the like or directly competitive 
                agricultural product; or
                  (II) the serious injury cannot be timely 
                prevented through investigation under 
                subsection (b) and action under section 203.
          (D) At the request of the Commission, the Secretary 
        of Agriculture shall promptly provide to the Commission 
        any relevant information that the Department of 
        Agriculture may have for purposes of making 
        determinations and findings under this subsection.
          (E) Whenever the Commission makes an affirmative 
        preliminary determination under subparagraph (C), the 
        Commission shall find the amount or extent of 
        provisional relief that is necessary to prevent or 
        remedy the serious injury. In carrying out this 
        subparagraph, the Commission shall give preference to 
        increasing or imposing a duty on imports, if such form 
        of relief is feasible and would prevent or remedy the 
        serious injury.
          (F) The Commission shall immediately report to the 
        President its determination under subparagraph (C) and, 
        if the determination is affirmative, the finding under 
        subparagraph (E).
          (G) Within 7 days after receiving a report from the 
        Commission under subparagraph (F) containing an 
        affirmative determination, the President, if he 
        considers provisional relief to be warranted and after 
        taking into account the finding of the Commission under 
        subparagraph (E), shall proclaim such provisional 
        relief that the President considers necessary to 
        prevent or remedy the serious injury.
          [(2)(A) When a petition filed under subsection (a) 
        alleges that critical circumstances exist and requests 
        that provisional relief be provided under this 
        subsection with respect to imports of the article 
        identified in the petition, the Commission shall, not 
        later than 60 days after the petition containing the 
        request was filed, determine, on the basis of available 
        information, whether--
                  [(i) there is a clear evidence that increased 
                imports (either actual or relative to domestic 
                production) of the article are a substantial 
                cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, 
                to the domestic industry producing an article 
                like or directly competitive with the imported 
                article; and
                  [(ii) delay in taking action under this 
                chapter would cause damage to that industry 
                that would be difficult to repair.]
          (2)(A) Whenever a petition filed under subsection (a) 
        of a request filed under subsection (b) alleges that 
        critical circumstances exist and requests that 
        provisional relief be provided under this subsection 
        with respect to imports of the article identified in 
        the petition or request, the Commission shall, not 
        later than 45 days after the petition or request is 
        filed, determine, on the basis of available 
        information, whether
                  (i) there is clear evidence that increased 
                imports (either actual or relative to domestic 
                production) of the article are causing or 
                threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic 
                industry producing an article like or directly 
                competitive with the imported article; and
                  (ii) delay in taking action under this 
                chapter would cause damage to that industry 
                that would be difficult to repair.
In making the evaluation under clause (ii), the Commission 
should consider, among other factors that it considers 
relevant, the timing and volume of the imports, including 
whether there has been a substantial increase in imports over a 
short period of time, and any other circumstances indicating 
that delay in taking action under this chapter would cause 
damage to the industry that would be difficult to repair.
          (B) If the determination under subparagraph (A)(i) 
        and (ii) are affirmative, the Commission shall find the 
        amount or extent of provisional relief that is 
        necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury. In 
        carrying out this subparagraph, the Commission shall 
        give preference to increasing or imposing a duty on 
        imports, if such form of relief is feasible and would 
        prevent or remedy the serious injury.
          (C) The Commission shall immediately report to the 
        President its determinations under subparagraph (A)(i) 
        and (ii) and, if the determinations are affirmative, 
        the finding under subparagraph (B).
          (D) Within [30] 20 days after receiving a report from 
        the Commission under subparagraph (C) containing an 
        affirmative determination under subparagraph (A)(i) and 
        (ii), the President, if he considers provisional relief 
        to be warranted and after taking into account the 
        finding of the Commission under subparagraph (B), shall 
        proclaim, for a period not to exceed 200 days, such 
        provisional relief that the President considers 
        necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury. Such 
        relief shall take the form of an increase in, or the 
        imposition of, a duty on imports, if such form of 
        relief is feasible and would prevent or remedy the 
        serious injury.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 203. ACTION BY PRESIDENT AFTER DETERMINATION OF IMPORT INJURY.

    (a) In General.--
          (1)(A) After receiving a report under section 202(f) 
        containing an affirmative finding regarding serious 
        injury, or the threat thereof, to a domestic industry, 
        the President shall take all appropriate and feasible 
        action within his power which the President determines 
        will facilitate efforts by the domestic industry to 
        make a positive adjustment to import competition [and 
        provide greater economic and social benefits than 
        costs] and will not have an adverse impact on the 
        United States substantially out of proportion to the 
        benefits of such action.
          (B) The action taken by the President under 
        subparagraph (A) shall be to such extent, and for such 
        duration, subject to subsection (e)(1), that the 
        President determines to be appropriate and feasible 
        under such subparagraph.
          (C) The interagency trade organization established 
        under section 242(a) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 
        shall, with respect to each affirmative determination 
        reported under section 202(f), make a recommendation to 
        the President as to what action the President should 
        take under subparagraph (A).
          (2) In determining what action to take under 
        paragraph (1), the President shall take into account--
                  (A) the recommendation and report of the 
                Commission;
                  (B) the extent to which workers and firms in 
                the domestic industry are--
                          (i) benefitting from adjustment 
                        assistance and other manpower programs, 
                        and
                          (ii) engaged in worker retraining 
                        efforts;
                  (C) the efforts being made, or to be 
                implemented, by the domestic industry 
                (including the efforts included in any 
                adjustment plan or commitment submitted to the 
                Commission under section 202(a)) to make a 
                positive adjustment to import competition;
                  (D) the probable effectiveness of the actions 
                authorized under paragraph (3) to facilitate 
                positive adjustment to import competition;
                  (E) the short- and long-term economic and 
                social costs of the actions authorized under 
                paragraph (3) relative to their short- and 
                long-term economic and social benefits and 
                other considerations relative to the position 
                of the domestic industry in the United States 
                economy;
                  (F) other factors related to the national 
                economic interest of the United States, 
                including, but not limited to--
                          (i) the economic and social costs 
                        which would be incurred by taxpayers, 
                        communities, and workers if import 
                        relief were not provided under this 
                        chapter,
                          (ii) the effect of the implementation 
                        of actions under this section on 
                        consumers and on competition in 
                        domestic markets for articles, and
                          (iii) the impact on United States 
                        industries and firms as a result of 
                        international obligations regarding 
                        compensation[;],
except that the President shall give substantially greater 
weight to the factors set out in clause (i) than to those set 
out in clauses (ii) and (iii), unless doing so would be 
inconsistent with the overall economic interest of the United 
States;
                  (G) the extent to which there is diversion of 
                foreign exports to the United States market by 
                reason of foreign restraints;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Implementation of Action Recommended by Commission.--If 
the President reports under subsection (b)(1) or (2) that--
          (1) the action taken under subsection (a)(1) differs 
        from the action recommended by the Commission under 
        section 202(e)(1); or
          (2) no action will be taken under subsection (a)(1) 
        with respect to the domestic industry;
the action recommended by the Commission shall take effect (as 
provided in subsection (d)(2)) upon the enactment of a joint 
resolutiondescribed in section 152(a)(1)(A) within the [90] 60-
day period beginning on the date of which the document referred to in 
subsection (b)(1) or (2) is transmitted to the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Limitations on Action.--
          (1)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the duration of 
        the period in which an action taken under this section 
        may be in effect shall not exceed 4 years. Such period 
        shall include the period, if any, in which provisional 
        relief under section 202(d) was in effect.
          (B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the President, after 
        receiving an affirmative determination from the 
        Commission under section 204(c) (or, if the Commission 
        is equally divided in its determintion, a determination 
        which the President considers to be an affirmative 
        determination of the Commission), may extend the 
        effective period of any action under this section if 
        the President determines that--
                  (I) the action continues to be necessary to 
                prevent or remedy the serious injury; and
                  (II) there is evidence that the domestic 
                industry is making a positive adjustment to 
                import competition.
          (ii) The effective period of any action under this 
        section, including any extensions thereof, may not, in 
        the aggregate, exceed 8 years.
          (2) Action of a type described in subsection 
        (a)(3)(A), (B), or (C) may be taken under subsection 
        (a)(1), under section 202(d)(1)(G), or under section 
        202(2)(D) only to the extent the cumulative impact of 
        such action does not exceed the amount neccessary to 
        prevent or remedy the serious injury.
          (3) No action may be taken under this section which 
        would increase a rate of duty to (or impose a rate) 
        which is more than 50 percent ad valorem above the rate 
        (if any) existing at the time the action is taken.
          (4) Any action taken under this section proclaiming a 
        quantitative restriction shall permit the importation 
        of a quantity or value of the article which is not less 
        than the average quantity or value of such article 
        entered into the United States in the most recent 3 
        years that are representative of imports of such 
        article and for which data are available, unless the 
        President finds that the importation of a different 
        quantity or value is clearly justified in order to 
        prevent or remedy the serious injury.
          (5) An action described in subsection (a)(3)(A), (B), 
        or (C) that has an effective period of more than 1 year 
        shall be phased doen at regular intervals during the 
        period in which the action is in effect.
          (6)(A) The suspension, pursuant to any action taken 
        under this section, of--
                  (i) subheading 9802.00.60 or 9802.00.80 of 
                the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
                States with respect to an article; and
                  (ii) the designation of any article as an 
                eligible article for purposes of title V;
        shall be treated as an increase in duty.
          (B) No proclamation providing for a suspension 
        referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to any 
        article may be made by the President, nor may any such 
        suspension be recommended by the Commission under 
        section 202(e), unless the Commission, in addition to 
        making an affirmative determination under section 
        202(b)(1), determines in the course of its 
        investigation under section 202(b) that the serious 
        injury, or threat thereof, [substantially] caused by 
        imports to the domestic industry producing a like or 
        directly competitive article results from, as the case 
        may be--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 264. STUDY BY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WHEN INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
                    COMMISSION BEGINS INVESTIGATION; ACTION WHERE THERE 
                    IS AFFIRMATIVE FINDING.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (c) Whenever the Commission makes an affirmative finding 
under section 202(b) that increased imports are [a substantial 
cause of serious injury or threat thereof] causing or 
threatening to cause serious injury with respect to an 
industry, the Secretary shall make available, to the extent 
feasible, full information to the firms in such industry about 
programs which may facilitate the orderly adjustment to import 
competition of such firms, and he shall provide assistance in 
the preparation and processing of petitions and applications of 
such firms for program benefits.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          TARIFF ACT OF 1930

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                     TITLE III--SPECIAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 322. INVESTIGATIONS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (g) Reports to President and Congress.--The Commission 
shall put at the disposal of the President of the United 
States, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, 
whenever requested, all information at its command, and shall 
make such investigations and reports as may be requested by the 
President or by either of said committees or by either branch 
of the Congress. However, the Commission may not release 
information which the Commission considers to be confidential 
business information unless the party submitting the 
confidential business information had notice, at the time of 
submission, that such information would be released by the 
Commission, or such party subsequently consents to the release 
of the information. The Commission shall report to Congress on 
the first Monday of December of each year hereafter a statement 
of the methods adopted and all expenses incurred, a summary of 
all reports made during the year, and a list of all votes taken 
by the commission during the year, showing those commissioners 
voting in the affirmative and the negative on each vote and 
those commissioners not voting on each vote and the reasons for 
not voting. Each such annual report shall include a list of all 
complaints filed under section 337 during the year for which 
such report is being made, the date on which each such 
complaint was filed, and the action taken thereon, and the 
status of all investigations conducted by the commission under 
such section during such year and the date on which each such 
investigation was commenced.
    (h)(1) Any entity, including any trade association, firm, 
certified or recognized union, or group of workers, which is 
representative of a domestic industry that produces an article 
that is like or directly competitive with an imported article, 
may file a request with the President pursuant to paragraph (2) 
for the monitoring of imports of such article under subsection 
(g).
    (2) If the request filed under paragraph (1) alleges that 
an article is being imported into the United States in such 
increased quantities as to cause serious injury, or threat 
thereof, to a domestic industry, the President, within 45 days 
receiving the request, shall determine if monitoring is 
appropriate.
    (3) If the determination under paragraph (2) is 
affirmative, the President shall request, under subsection (g), 
the Commission to monitor and investigate the imports concerned 
for a period not to exceed 2 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  TITLE IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 484. ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (f) Statistical Enumeration.--[The Secretary]
          (1) The Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 
        United States International Trade Commission shall 
        establish from time to time for statistical purposes an 
        enumeration of articles in such detail as in their 
        judgment may be necessary, comprehending all 
        merchandise imported into the United States and 
        exported from the United States, and shall seek, in 
        conjunction with statistical programs for domestic 
        production and programs for achieving international 
        harmonization of trade statistics to establish the 
        comparability thereof with such enumeration of 
        articles. All import entries and export declarations 
        shall include or have attached thereto an accurate 
        statement specifying, in terms of such detailed 
        enumeration, the kinds and quantities of all 
        merchandise imported and exported and the value of the 
        total quantity of each kind of article.
          (2) The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
        Commerce, and the International Trade Commission shall 
        establish a suffix or other indicator to the Harmonized 
        Tariff Schedule of the United States for merchandise 
        that is subject to countervailing duty orders or 
        antidumping duty orders under title VII of this Act, or 
        subject to actions by the President under chapter 1 of 
        title II, or section 406, of the Trade Act of 1974.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           TITLE VII--COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 704. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF INVESTIGATION.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (d) Additional Rules and Conditions.--
          (1) Public interest; monitoring.--The administering 
        authority shall not accept an agreement under 
        subsection (b) or (c) unless--
                  (A) it is satisfied that suspension of the 
                investigation is in the public interest, [and]
                  (B) effective monitoring of the agreement by 
                the United States is practicable[.], and
                  (C) the domestic products or workers who 
                support the agreement account for more than 50 
                percent of the production of the domestic like 
                product produced by those expressing an opinion 
                on the agreement.
        Where practicable, the administering authority shall 
        provide to the exporters who would have been subject to 
        the agreement the reasons for not accepting the 
        agreement and, to the extent possible, an opportunity to 
        submit comments thereon. In applying subparagraph (A) with 
        respect to any quantitative restriction agreement under 
        subsection (c), the administering authority shall take into 
        account, in addition to such other factors as are considered 
        necessary or appropriate, the factors set forth in subsection 
        (a)(2)(B) (i), (ii), and (iii) as they apply to 
        the proposed suspension and agreement, after consulting with 
        the appropriate consuming industries, producers, and workers 
        referred to in subsection (a)(2)(C) (i) and (ii).
          (2) Exports of merchandise to united states not to 
        increase during interim period.--The administering 
        authority may not accept any agreement under subsection 
        (b) unless that agreement provides a means of ensuring 
        that the quantity of the merchandise covered by the 
        agreement exported to the United States during the 
        period provided for elimination or off-set of the 
        countervailable subsidy or cessation of exports does 
        not exceed the quantity of such merchandise exported to 
        the United States during the most recent 
        representatives period determined by the administering 
        authority.
          (3) Regulations governing entry or withdrawals.--In 
        order to carry out an agreement concluded under 
        subsection (b) or (c), the administering authority is 
        authorized to prescribe regulations governing the 
        entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption of 
        subject merchandise.
          (4) Special rules relating to domestic producer and 
        worker support.--
                  (A) Determination of industry support.--
                          (i) Certain positions disregarded.--
                                  (I) Producers related to 
                                foreign producers.--In 
                                determining industry support 
                                under paragraph (1)(C), the 
                                administering authority shall 
                                disregard the position of 
                                domestic producers who support 
                                the agreement, if such 
                                producers are related to 
                                foreign producers, as defined 
                                in section 771(4)(B)(ii), 
                                unless such domestic producers 
                                demonstrate that their 
                                interests as domestic producers 
                                would be adversely affected if 
                                the agreement is not accepted.
                                  (II) Producers who are 
                                importers.--The administering 
                                authority may disregard the 
                                position of domestic producers 
                                of a domestic like product who 
                                are importers of the subject 
                                merchandise.
                          (ii) Special rule for regional 
                        industries.--If the petition which led 
                        to the proposed suspension agreement 
                        alleges that the industry is a regional 
                        industry, the administering authority 
                        shall determine whether the agreement 
                        is supported by or on behalf of the 
                        industry by applying paragraph (1)(C) 
                        on the basis of production in the 
                        region.
                  (B) National security exception.--In any case 
                in which the administering authority determines 
                that the domestic producers in workers who 
                support the agreement do not account for more 
                than 50 percent of the production of the 
                domestic like product produced by those expressing 
                an opinion on the agreement, the administering 
                authority may accept the agreement, notwithstanding 
                the provisions if paragraph (1)(C), if the President 
                determines and certifies to the administering 
                authority that failure to accept the agreement would 
                undermine the national security interests of the 
                United States or pose an extraordinary threat to the 
                economy of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 734. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF INVESTIGATION.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (d) Additional Rules and Conditions.--[The administering 
authority] (1) In General.--The administering authority may not 
accept an agreement under subsection (b) or (c) unless--
          [(1)] (A) it is satisfied that suspension of the 
        investigation is in the public interest, [and]
          [(2)] (B) effective monitoring of the agreement by 
        the United States is practicable[.], and
          (C) the domestic producers or workers who support the 
        agreement account for more than 50 percent of the 
        production of the domestic like product produced by 
        those expressing an opinion on the agreement.
    (2) Special rules relating to domestic producer and worker 
support.--
          (A) Determination of industry support.--
                  (i) Certain positions disregarded.--
                          (I) Producers related to foreign 
                        producers.--In determining domestic 
                        producer or worker support for purposes 
                        of paragraph (1)(C), the administering 
                        authority shall disregard the position 
                        of domestic producers who support the 
                        agreement, if such producers are 
                        related to foreign producers, as 
                        defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii), 
                        unless such domestic producers 
                        demonstrate that their interests as 
                        domestic producers would be adversely 
                        affected if the agreement is not 
                        accepted.
                          (II) Producers who are importers.--
                        The administering authority may 
                        disregard the position of domestic 
                        producers of a domestic like product 
                        who are importers of the subject 
                        merchandise.
                  (ii) Special rule for regional industries.--
                If the petition which led to the proposed 
                suspension agreement alleges the industry is a 
                regional industry, the administering authority 
                shall determine whether the agreement is 
                supported by or on behalf of the industry by 
                applying paragraph (1)(C) on the basis of 
                production in the region.
          (B) National security exception.--In any case in 
        which the administering authority determines that the 
        domestic producers or workers who support the agreement 
        do not account for more than 50 percent of the 
        production of the domestic like product produced by 
        those expressing an opinion on the agreement, the 
        administering authority may accept the agreement, 
        notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(C), if 
        the President determines and certifies to the 
        administering authority that failure to accept the 
        agreement would undermine the national security 
        interests of the United States or pose an extraordinary 
        threat to the economy of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
