Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time did I use on this side?

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from North Carolina need? I will yield him half of my time. I ask that time that has been absorbed in this colloquy come out of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Do I have any time left?

Mr. BYRD. Forty-eight years.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I yield my 5 remaining minutes to the Senator from North Carolina. I don't have control of the time other than that.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of the list of speakers my name be placed next in order to speak not to exceed 15 minutes in opposition to the motion to table.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object to that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, who is going to pay attention if we agree to have 10-minute votes? Does anyone want to take a bet on it? We will not defer to that request. It will still be the same old thing--15 minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes. I would be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed to keep this Senate waiting on me for a vote. I hope if I am ever out and the time is up, they will call it. They won't hear a peep out of me. We ought to respect the convenience and inconvenience of our colleagues who are kept waiting here. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I close by thanking Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, and other Senators who have been so considerate and courteous. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Torricelli. They are speaking the people's language. They are talking plain, commonsense. They are right in offering this amendment. Senator Thompson is asking that we in this Senate pay attention to the national security concerns of this Nation, asking that we put national security ahead of greed. What is wrong with that? He is asking that we put the national security of the United States of America ahead of election-year politics. What is the matter with this Senate? Can we not see the handwriting on the wall? The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons--is a growing menace to world stability. Can we not see that? The acquisition of nuclear weapons by such rogue nations as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq is the driving force behind the costly and complicated effort by the United States to deploy a national missile defense system. Can we not see that? The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is forcing the nations of the world, including the United States, to reevaluate their own national security and to confront once again the nightmarish possibility of nuclear war. Can we not see that? The main perpetrators behind the spread of weapons of mass destruction are China, Russia, and North Korea. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, in a report to Congress released last month, this unholy trinity of proliferators were the key contributors to the pipeline of ballistic missile related supplies and assistance going into the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa. It seems ludicrous to me that we would even consider standing here and debating the merits of extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to the People's Republic of China without addressing the issue of China's leading role in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Thompson-Torricelli amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is essential to tightening our scrutiny of and control over the illegitimate trafficking in weapons of mass destruction by Chinese entities. What weak dishwater is the excuse that we cannot add anything to the House-passed bill that would force a conference that might make some members of the House uncomfortable. What a sorry spectacle is a Senate completely cowed by the possibility that we might upset the Chinese if we add this provision. What a travesty that the Secretary of Defense is reported to be calling Senators to oppose an amendment that puts the Chinese on notice about their egregious actions regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--weapons that threaten the safety of the planet. I care nothing about a President's legacy if this is the price. I care nothing about profits for multinational companies if this is the price. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Unites States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and so did every other member of this body. Are we to tear up that oath for the election-year politics and greed? Do we think that the American people are watching this debate with pride today? Do we think the American people are willing to auction off this Nation's security interests for the low bid of a Chinese promise to reduce tariffs? China's string of broken promises is longer than its Great Wall. We are talking here about the wanton export of nuclear weapons, of chemical weapons, of biological weapons and of long-range missiles. And what do we hear as a defense against addressing such dangerous and diabolical behavior? We hear the tepid, water-logged response that such action we might take would endanger passage of this trade bill. I have been in legislative bodies for 54 years, Mr. President. This is the first time I have ever seen anything such as this. When I was in the House of Delegates in West Virginia, I objected to being bound by a caucus, and I have never yet intended to be bound by any cabal or any commitment that, regardless of what the merits may be on a given amendment, we will vote against it. I have never seen that happen. I have never been one to believe in that approach. I say to my friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, the world's greatest deliberative body is quaking and wringing its hands over an amendment that would send a shot over the bow of the rogue elephant behavior of the Chinese. We tremble at the thought of Chinese displeasure. Our lips quiver at the thought of displeasing big business or the president of the Chamber of Commerce or Cabinet members of the Clinton administration or the President himself as they dial for dollars and for votes. Those of us who refuse to roll over like good dogs just don't get it. We know that the fix is in on this fight, but we just keep slugging anyway. Maybe we will land a good punch or two if we fight on. Maybe the powers that be in China will notice there were some in the Senate who refused to legitimize China's outrageous disregard for the safety of the world by handing them the trophy of PNTR. Thank God for the likes of Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Fred Thompson, Senator Fritz Hollings, and Senator Bob Torricelli, and the 33 brave souls--33 brave souls, I want you to know--who dared to vote with me on a couple of modest amendments to this ill-advised trade bill. I thank them. I believe the American people know what we are trying to do, and I believe they will put patriotism over pandering for profit any day. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an item from the New York Times titled ``Wavering Senators Feeling Pressure on China Trade Bill.'' I will have more to say about that later.

Mr. BYRD. I know the Senator regrets doing that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I didn't know anything about that agreement until I heard it put and accepted.

Mr. BYRD. I wouldn't want to take away the Senator's time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that there be order in the Senate, that staff in the Senate take seats, that staff in the Senate get out of the well. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4138

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the time being so the Senator may speak.

Mr. BYRD. I will ask for a quorum before the vote that will take longer than 15 minutes. I am entitled to that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Chair can see that the Senate is not in order. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may the Senate be in order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will speak briefly on my amendment. Then I will yield back the remainder of my time. I want to get to a markup of an appropriations bill by the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, of which I am a member. In simple language, my amendment adds surety for American firms and American workers who are caught up in the confusing process of seeking relief from a surge of unfair imports. The process of getting the U.S. Government to agree with a firm's firsthand judgement that a flood of unfairly dumped imports is undercutting a U.S. manufacturer is complex and time consuming. Language in the House-passed bill is an improvement, but it leaves a serious loophole. The House language provides deadlines for the government and the President to agree or disagree that relief is needed, but if the President fails to meet his deadline for a decision, nothing happens. No relief can be forthcoming until the President acts. And the President might be under other pressures, from the State Department, for instance, warning that an affirmative Presidential decision might upset some other, unrelated negotiation. The State Department is not charged with worrying about the fate of individual U.S. firms. The State Department is not charged with worrying about the fate of steel companies, for example. But for a firm hanging on by its fingernails, unable to pay its bills or secure needed financing, and for workers unsure when their lay-offs might end and their bills get paid, this uncertainty can be catastrophic. So the Byrd amendment says that if the President fails to act by the appointed deadline, the decision of the ITC will be implemented as though the President had agreed. So firms and workers will know on what date certain they will get their answer. The steel companies will know when they will get their answer. Coal miners will know, because they are affected by steel imports as well. That is what my amendment does. And for those affected firms, and those workers, that is pretty important. They need to know, and their bankers and creditors need to know. They need to be able to plan, and no other concerns should come before them, in my opinion. I've seen too many families suffering when the plant shuts down, too many towns hollowing out and falling into disrepair when people just give up. We need to give our citizens, our firms, an efficient and sure process to seek relief and to get relief when it is warranted. This is our chance. This is our chance to strike a blow for the steel industry, which is a very important industry in the State represented by the current Presiding Officer. It is a very important industry in my State, exceedingly important. Now is the time to strike a blow for freedom, for the freedom of those men and women who work in these industries, freedom to know when relief is coming. They should not have to wait until a President seeks his own convenient moment. They should know the date. And when that date comes, it should happen. Let's make it happen by my amendment. I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the amendment by Mr. Helms, my amendment at the desk be made the pending business.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to improve the certainty of the implementation of import relief in cases of affirmative determinations by the International Trade Commission with respect to market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. The amendment is simple and straightforward and it may be vital to many U.S. industries, such as steel, footwear, and apples. It certainly causes no harm. U.S. trade law provides for import relief authorities under sections 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the Trade Act of 1974, and relief from market disruption by imports from Communist countries, such as China, under section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. These safeguard actions are intended to provide temporary import relief from serious injury to domestic producers. These provisions are essential in order to provide U.S. manufacturers or farmers with an opportunity to address sudden waves of imports--such as those brought on by economic crises in foreign markets, and under other unexpected conditions beyond domestic control. Regrettably, however, the import relief procedures are widely recognized as overly complicated and generally ineffective. Import relief authorities require exhaustive investigations and must meet tough litmus tests. Remedies granted under these authorities are so difficult to achieve that only a handful of the most egregious cases ever receive an affirmative verdict. The number of cases that have received relief under the import relief provisions speak for themselves: In the last five years, only six Section 201 cases resulted in some form of remedy out of 21 cases filed. Market disruption caused by imports from a communist country, such as China, is even more complicated. Traditional remedies for import surges and unfair trade practices, such as Section 201 and the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, are inadequate to deal with a sudden and massive influx of imports that can be manipulated by government control of state-owned enterprises, including pricing and distribution schemes. The Trade Act of 1974 attempted to address these complications through the establishment of Section 406. Although similar to Sections 201, 202, 203, and Section 406 was intended to provide a lower standard of injury and a faster relief procedure, and requires the investigation to focus on imports from a specific country. Given the difficulty of proving Section 406, however, only 13 cases have received remedy under the laws since the provisions were enacted in 1974. In other words, in 26 years only 13 cases have received remedies under the law. It is not a very good batting average. The United States Trade Representative acknowledged that the import relief authorities provided under current law are flawed, and, thus, to her credit, the Product-Specific Safeguard protocol language in the U.S.-China bilateral agreement was negotiated to enhance the ability of the U.S. to respond more genuinely and immediately to market disruptions caused by Chinese products entering the United States. Nevertheless, the House of Representative recognized that the protocol language could not provide real relief to U.S. industries that might be threatened by a surge of imports from China, and, therefore, the House-passed PNTR measure includes the Levin-Bereuter language on import surges. This language is a significant improvement over current law and the language included in the protocol to the U.S.-China bilateral agreement. However, the House import surge safeguard provisions continue to lack an essential element. They continue to fall short on a point of utmost importance. While very, very close to providing meaningful benefits, the Levin-Bereuter import surge safeguard language does not provide a reasonable assurance to U.S. industry or workers that remedies against harmful import surges will be taken in a timely manner. One of the most serious problems encountered with the use of import surge safeguards is the delays in taking action. Whether required by law or not, the administration can never seem to meet specific dates, and days turn into weeks and weeks turn into months. Meanwhile, U.S. industries and workers must sit by, unable to respond, as they watch their market share, their profits and their jobs dwindle away. My amendment finally adds a certainty to the import surge safeguards. It is simple and to the point. My amendment would put into effect the relief recommended by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in the case of an affirmative determination of market disruption in the event that no action is taken by the President or the U.S. Trade Representatives, seventy days after the ITC report is submitted. Again, my amendment assures U.S. manufacturers and farmers and workers that action will occur on an ITC affirmative determination that a market disruption has occurred, and under the exact time frame as provided under the Levin-Bereuter provisions. The Levin-Bereuter provisions provide legislative time frames on market disruption investigations. First, the Levin-Bereuter provisions require an ITC determination within 60 days of the initiation of an investigation, or 90 days in the investigation of confidential business information. Following the ITC action, the U.S. Trade Representative has 55 days to make a recommendation to the President regarding the case. Within 15 days after receipt of a recommendation from the U.S. Trade Representative, the President is directed to take action. Thus, the Levin-Bereuter provisions were intended to initiate action within 70 days following the ITC affirmative determination. In real life, however, Section 401 cases have not existed for years, and many of the six Section 201 decisions that received some remedy over the last five years were delayed by weeks and even months beyond the current statutory deadline! U.S. firms have lost confidence in these provisions, and they cannot afford to pay legal expenses for decisions that might never be. I have been particularly concerned about the U.S. steel wire-rod case. Wire-rod producers had to wait almost five months beyond the statutory deadline to receive a decision by the President that remedies would be put into place! The U.S. steel wire rod industry filed for relief under Section 201 of the trade law on December 30, 1998, and followed lengthy, costly procedures consistent with the statute. The domestic wire rod industry was encouraged after a recommendation for relief was provided by the International Trade Commission, and the industry looked eagerly to the President's decision, which was required under statute within 60 days, or by September 27, 1999. The U.S. steel wire rod company officials, workers and their families and communities waited, and waited, and waited. However, September 1999 came and went, the fall foliage dropped from the trees, leaving them bare to the north, south, east and west, the Thanksgiving feast was held and the family gathered round and sang songs, and the Christmas season came and the Christmas season went--there was no Santa Claus, Virginia--New Year's Day was celebrated--and yet, no action. As the days slipped from the calendar, imports rose! In fact, imports rose 12 percent from November to December 1999 and were up 15 percent over 1998. The real story is that, with each passing day, production was lost and American jobs were sacrificed. Lost income to the company became lost income to the bankers, to the company suppliers, to the tax base that supports local schools and roads. Worse, there was lost income to American families. Who pays for the Christmas presents that every little child dreams of? Time is money. That is what they say. In February 2000, the President announced that relief would be granted to the U.S. steel wire rod industry. This was very happy news and received joyfully in the steel community. But, the fact remains that the money lost in the wait for a decision was lost forever. China's trade with the U.S. continues to skyrocket. Imports of consumers goods, agricultural goods, and manufactured products from China are currently entering the U.S. market at an unprecedented rates! The United States has it largest bilateral deficit with China, which grew $910 million to a record $7.22 billion in June 2000 alone. Why is my amendment necessary? Because when we are successful in plugging one hole in the Chinese dike, thousands more seem to spring through, gushing imports. According to official Department of Commerce import statistics, low-priced Chinese imports of steel rail joints have increased approximately 788 percent from 1997 to 2000. As in the steel wire rod situation, these Chinese imports have resulted in lost sales and depressed prices for the American industry. I have a manufacturer of steel rail joints in Huntington, West Virginia, the Portec Rail Products, Inc. Speaking of Huntington, my recollection reminds me that there was a congressman from West Virginia who resided in Huntington, WV, around the turn of the century. His name was Hughes. He had a daughter on the Titanic when that great ship went down and carried with it his daughter along with more than 1,500 other victims. Only 713 persons were rescued off that Titanic that went to its watery grave on the morning of April 15, 1912. I care about the future of this manufacturer of steel rail joints in Huntington, WV. I care about its future, and I care about the future of the people who work there. There are thousands and thousands of small manufacturers that have a critical need for strong trade laws and a critical need to have an assurance that the laws will work as intended. Portec Rail Products, Inc., is a small business. It makes steel rail joints that hold rail sections together and allow the construction of the many miles of railroad that provide smooth transit in this country for both commercial and passenger trains. Portec has provided solid, semiskilled manufacturing jobs for many hard-working West Virginians. It also supports the State's economy by purchasing high quality steel bars from other West Virginia steel producers. This company has added to the prosperity of my State of West Virginia and to the Nation. This company is facing a flood of Chinese imports, however. During the first quarter of 2000, for example, Chinese imports were at a record pace of 175,000 pounds, a figure which, if annualized, would amount to a 788-percent increase since 1997. The situation facing Portec is an authentic, true-life example of why this Senate should adopt the Byrd amendment. The workers of Portec are being bled dry under this hail of imports. I urge the Senate to help these workers to ensure that they are not subject to the ugly situation that the U.S. steel wire rod workers endured. Let us not sit by idly, twiddling our thumbs and biting our fingernails and watching our toenails grow, by watching also these workers' savings, so painfully secured, become washed away, and watch the slow erosion of morale and confidence. This amendment would help Portec to fight back. I say to my colleagues, help me to help Portec and other U.S. manufacturers and farmers. Chinese state-owned enterprise continues to remain a major source of jobs in China. Many of these state-owned enterprises are directly controlled by the Chinese Government and they play a central role in China's monetary scheme. In fact, the Bureau of National Affairs reported on July 21 of this year that the China Daily quoted Yang Zilin, President of the Export-Import Bank of China, as saying that China's state-backed financing played a strong role in boosting China's exports in the first half of this year. That's right, a Chinese official readily acknowledges the systematic use of export subsidies to help boost China's skyrocketing exports. In case anyone is wondering, export subsidies directly impede the ability of American firms to compete with the Chinese. My amendment is consistent with the goals of the House-passed China PNTR bill. It improves the certainty of the implementation of import relief in cases of affirmative determinations by the International Trade Commission of market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly like products. It has been widely proclaimed by the White House and many in Congress supporting the China PNTR legislation that the product-specific safeguard provisions are a critical component of the U.S.-China bilateral agreement. My amendment ensures compliance to the timeframe that Congress intends. More importantly, it provides a standard upon which American workers and American businesses can rely. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.