THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
``(3) imported wool fiber or wool top, of the kind described in heading 9902.51.14 of such
[Page: S3615] GPO's PDF
(2) FUNDING.--There is authorized to be appropriated and is appropriated, out of amounts in the General Fund of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $36,251,000 to carry out the amendments made by paragraph (1).
SEC. 202. CEILING FANS.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, ceiling fans classified under subheading 8414.51.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States imported from Thailand shall enter duty-free and without any quantitative limitations, if duty-free treatment under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.) would have applied to such entry had the competitive need limitation been waived under section 503(d) of such Act.
(b) APPLICABILITY.--The provisions of this section shall apply to ceiling fans described in subsection (a) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption--
(1) on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) before July 30, 2002.
SEC. 203. CERTAIN STEAM OR OTHER VAPOR GENERATING BOILERS USED IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Subheading 9902.84.02 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
(1) by striking ``4.9%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
(2) by striking ``12/31/2003'' and inserting ``12/31/2006''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2002.
AMENDMENT NO. 3386
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, with the authority of the Finance Committee, I withdraw the committee amendment and send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment is withdrawn.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. DASCHLE] proposes an amendment numbered 3386.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have just sent to the desk legislation that includes three components: First, the trade promotion authority; second, trade adjustment assistance; and third, the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.
The trade adjustment assistance measures are particularly crucial because they will provide help to dislocated workers. This package includes job search assistance, unemployment insurance, and, for the first time, much needed health benefits. We are now ready to begin the debate on this important trade legislation and, as we have noted for some time, this bill is open to amendment and we encourage Senators to come forth with their amendments soon.
I look forward to a full and spirited debate. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, sometime when the Senate is doing its best work, it is not always visible. Throughout the day, we have been having discussions that involved the managers of this legislation. They have been talking to members of the Finance Committee and communicating with the administration. It is very important that we have the straight legislation. There are a lot of different views on both sides of the aisle about exactly how this should proceed, or whether it is a good idea.
There are those who say, yes, we would like to have trade promotion authority, but there must be trade adjustment assistance to go with it for those who might be displaced from jobs so they can get assistance with training and get into the next job.
It is important we move forward. Everybody's options are still preserved. Senator Daschle and I have indicated to each other that there is not going to be any precipitous move. We want to take a look at the actual language. Sometimes it is hard to negotiate a moving target or when there is not a clear understanding of what is involved.
We now have a document. We are going to take a look at it tonight. I hope we can begin to move forward, perhaps even with amendments tomorrow. We will go over the language, and we will be talking further with the managers of the legislation and make sure the administration has a chance to review it.
I look forward to a full debate and amendment process. I do wish to add--and I know Senator Daschle is thinking it right now--this should not take place over weeks, as we experienced with the energy bill. We have some important issues, some tough issues, but once we see if we can come to agreement on two or three of these issues or get votes on a couple of these issues, we should be able to move it forward in an expeditious way.
It did not work on the energy bill, but I do think this week, and hopefully by the end of next week, we will have an agreement on which we can vote. It is worth the effort, and I am prepared to put a lot of time into it.
I thank Senator Daschle for agreeing to lay this legislation down so we can take a look at it. We will continue working together tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first, I compliment and thank the distinguished Republican leader for the cooperative effort he has put forth to get to this point. We have talked on many occasions over the last several days, and the spirit with which he has discussed the importance of this legislation, as well as the importance of a good debate, is exactly the one I hold as well.
I encourage Senators to offer amendments, but let me also say, as the Senator alluded, we will be able to determine whether this is good faith or not, whether we are just delaying for the sake of delaying; that will not be something we can tolerate. But we certainly encourage a good and vigorous debate with ample opportunity to offer amendments. There is a difference between simply delaying for delaying sake and amendments for the sake of changing, improving, or in some way altering the legislation as it has been introduced.
Again, we will work with all of our colleagues to accommodate that and look forward to the debate beginning tonight and again tomorrow morning. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
AMENDMENT NO. 3387 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3386
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. DORGAN], for himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 3387 to amendment No. 3386.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SECRET TRIBUNALS.
(a) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (``NAFTA'' ) allows foreign investors to file claims against signatory countries that directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment, or take measures ``tantamount to nationalization or expropriation'' of such an investment.
(2) Foreign investors have filed several claims against the United States, arguing that regulatory activity has been ``tantamount to nationalization or expropriation''. Most notably, a Canadian chemical company claimed $970,000,000 in damages allegedly resulting from a California State regulation banning the use of a gasoline additive produced by that company.
(3) A claim under Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA is adjudicated by a three-member panel, whose deliberations are largely secret.
(4) While it may be necessary to protect the confidentiality of business sensitive information, the general lack of transparency of these proceedings has been excessive.
(b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the proceedings of the NAFTA investor protection tribunals are as transparent as possible, consistent with the need to protect the confidentiality of business sensitive information.
(c) Chapter 11 of NAFTA .--The President shall negotiate with Canada and Mexico an amendment to Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA to ensure the fullest transparency possible with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism in that Chapter , consistent with the need to protect information that is classified or confidential, by--
[Page: S3616] GPO's PDF
(1) ensuring that all requests for dispute settlement under Chapter Eleven are promptly made public;
(2) ensuring that with respect to Chapter Eleven--
(A) all proceedings, submissions, findings, and decisions are promptly made public; and
(B) all hearings are open to the public; and
(3) establishing a mechanism under that Chapter for acceptance of amicus curiae submissions from businesses, unions, and nongovernmental organizations.
(d) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.--Within one year of the enactment of this Act, the U.S. Trade Representative shall certify to Congress that the President has fulfilled the requirements set forth in subsection (c).
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I understand the rather lengthy managers' amendment has just been offered. I do not know how many pages it is, but obviously we will have to study it. It is a substantial amendment.
I offer my amendment in the first degree to the managers' amendment that was just offered. I will describe it briefly. I understand there are no further votes today, and perhaps I will discuss it briefly and then discuss it some in the morning. I hope perhaps tomorrow we may have a vote on it. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Craig from Idaho.
The amendment is relatively simple. This amendment deals with Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA , secret multinational tribunals consider claims by private investors against member countries, including claims by foreign investors against the U.S. Government. This amendment would end the undemocratic and unfair secrecy in these tribunals.
My amendment directs the President to negotiate with Canada and Mexico an amendment to NAFTA that would require transparency in these tribunals. The U.S. Trade Representative under this amendment is to certify to Congress that this has been done within 12 months of the enactment.
Even the supporters of fast track have recognized that secrecy is not appropriate, and yet we have these tribunals that are secret. No one is allowed to understand their work; no one can be a part of their discussions; no one understands the deliberations. The door is locked. Three members are appointed to a tribunal. They meet in secret, make judgments in secret, make decisions in secret, and then we are told the result. That is not the way for this country to proceed with respect to dispute resolutions to trade agreements.
U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick has recognized this secrecy is a problem, and he met with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada on this issue. In fact, they agreed there needed to be more openness, and they announced that July 31 of last year. They said that these tribunals will operate as openly as possible.
But just last month, a NAFTA tribunal refused to open their proceedings once again and rejected the guidelines by Ambassador Zoellick and his counterparts.
This amendment will fix a problem that everyone, including the administration, acknowledges. It will require transparency. It will require an end to the secrecy, an opening up of the process so the American people can understand how this democratic process must work.
We cannot and should not be a party to secret tribunals. We have been, but we should not be, and my amendment will remedy that.
I understand that in the negotiating objectives described in the managers' amendment, there is language that would address the secrecy of the tribunals going forward for future agreements. I do not know that for certain. I am told that is part of the managers' amendment.
If it is the case, it seems logical to me that we would want to extend that to other agreements with which we are now engaged, including the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I might mention again--I do not have all the details--but we have a situation in California where California understood that an additive to gasoline called MTBE was showing up in drinking water and ground water. They discovered that is dangerous to people, and California banned MTBE from being added to gasoline in California. A couple of other States have taken
the same action.
A Canadian company that manufactures MTBE has filed an action under NAFTA and is asking for hundreds of millions of dollars against California and our country because we are taking action to protect our citizens. They say they have been injured by this and have a right under NAFTA to make the claim; then, a tribunal is developed and begins to meet and it is totally secret. Its proceedings are totally, completely secret. The American public is told: You are not involved; you cannot see, you cannot be a part of this; it is none of your business.
Talk about a bizarre set of circumstances for a democracy to enter into trade agreements by which we allow someone from another country to challenge a State government in our country, just because it is trying to protect their citizens from poisons in the drinking water, chemicals that are harmful to human health. We end up being sued under a trade agreement for damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, just for protecting our people; and we are told that this suit will be determined by a tribunal that will meet in secret. What is that about? Does anybody really think this makes any sense? Can anybody really support this? We will have a vote on this and see whether people will.
This amendment, which is bipartisan--Senator Craig and I are offering it--is a simple one. It says we are a party to trade agreements--we understand that--but we cannot and should not be a party to a trade agreement by which investor dispute tribunals will be conducted in secret. They have been in the past, they should not ever be again, and our amendment says, stop it, this country cannot be a part of that.
I will speak at greater length about the amendment and describe in some more detail the MTBE saga, which I think is symbolic of the egregious actions of tribunals meeting in secrecy. I will not do that this evening. I will do that in the morning.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator offering this amendment at this time. Based on what the majority leader just said, that he wanted, in effect, quality amendments, I think he has one here. This is the type of amendment people should look forward to, I hope.
Of what I know about the Senator's amendment--and I have spoken with him off the floor--it is going to be a tough amendment to vote against. How can anybody be in favor of secret meetings when they deal with some of the most important issues in this country and, in fact, our relations with other countries? I do not think we should be doing that in secret. That is what the Senator is saying; is that not true?
Mr. DORGAN. That is the case. This is an amendment I am offering, along with my colleague Senator Craig from Idaho. It is bipartisan. And whether you are in favor of fast track or opposed to it, you should be opposed to tribunals meeting in secret.
I think we will find agreement between both supporters and opponents of fast track that we ought not be a party to tribunals that are secret, that are shielded from the view of the American people. I am going to use the MTBE case tomorrow morning to graphically demonstrate how absurd it is that we could be sued under a trade law for taking action, or we can have action taken against us for our deciding we want to protect the health of the American people and that the dispute will be resolved behind a cloak of secrecy. That is not what this country should be involved in.
It is at this point because that is the way NAFTA works, but we can change it. This Congress can change it, and I hope tomorrow by voting for this amendment this Congress will change it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will speak on the bill, but I first want to make a comment not for or against the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota but to put it in context. The reason I cannot make a comment for or against the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota is at this point I have not read it or studied it. I do think he has brought up an issue of transparency, and it deals with NAFTA . On all agreements, particularly WTO agreements, there has been
[Page: S3617] GPO's PDF
Senator Baucus and I, in the Finance Committee, have spoken about the necessity for doing this in several different venues. We have spoken with people from the European Community about it. We believe the process of the WTO, for instance, should be very much more transparent than it has been in the past. So the issue of transparency is one that does fall on acceptable ears in a very general sense, not necessarily related to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota but in a very general sense with most of us in the Congress of the United States. Where we have run into most of the opposition is from the European Community.
We have also had a lot of the developing nations of the world that are members of the World Trade Organization be highly in favor of more transparency.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display