[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7393-S7406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REDUCTION IN VOLUME STEEL IMPORTS--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:35 
a.m. having arrived, there will now be 40 minutes of debate equally 
divided between the two leaders, or their designees, prior to the 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 975, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 66, H.R. 975, the steel import 
     limitation bill:
         Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, Jesse Helms, Ted 
           Stevens, Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Orrin Hatch, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Robert C. Byrd, Robert Torricelli, Fritz 
           Hollings, Pat Roberts, Arlen Specter, Richard Shelby, 
           and Craig Thomas.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I control the time in favor of the 
cloture motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                   unanimous consent request--s. 886

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request from 
the leader.
  I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XII, immediately 
following the 12:15 p.m. vote, Senator Dodd be recognized to speak 
relative to the State Department authorization bill for up to 15 
minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following his remarks, 
the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. for the policy conferences. 
I also ask that at 2:15 p.m. today, there be 5 minutes equally divided 
for debate on the Feingold amendment, and following that debate, the 
Senate proceed to a vote on the Feingold amendment No. 692. I ask 
unanimous consent that following the vote, Senator Helms be recognized 
to offer the managers' amendment and it be considered agreed to. 
Finally, I ask there be 5 minutes equally divided between the chairman 
and ranking member for closing remarks, that the bill then be read a 
third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to 
withhold that request. I know he was doing it as a favor. I appreciate 
it very much, but two things intervened in the last 5 minutes. I ask 
him to withhold that unanimous consent request for now.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I withhold the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Holly Vineyard, 
a Finance Committee detailee from the Department of Commerce, be 
granted floor privileges during the pendency of H.R. 975.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the cloture 
motion on the motion to proceed to the issue of steel quotas.
  Senator Rockefeller, who is my counterpart on the Democratic side 
leading this debate, and I are not people who have come to the floor of 
the Senate in favor of quotas. In fact, we think we are driven to this 
point as people who believe in free and fair trade, to ask the Senate 
to consider imposing quotas on the dumping of steel in this country by 
foreign nations.
  It is remarkable what has occurred. It is unprecedented what has 
occurred in the steel industry over the past 2\1/2\ years. We have seen 
the level of steel rise, as far as imports into this country, two, 
three, four, five times the amount from some countries in the past 2\1/
2\ years--and it continues.
  One of the mantras I hear from the administration, which is lobbying 
against this bill, is that the crisis is over. I can say that in the 
case of China, for example, the world's largest producer, just in the 
first 4 months of this year their dumping was up 80 percent--their 
imports were up 80 percent.
  So if the crisis is over, why then was the largest steel manufacturer 
dumping more steel into our market in the first 4 months of this year?
  We have a continuing problem. What Senator Rockefeller and I, and 
others who have joined us in this cause, are suggesting is something, 
frankly, that is very modest. We are suggesting a quota for 3 years to 
stop this outrageous and, I might add, illegal dumping.
  We have won or are winning every single dumping case in the 
international arena. Every single case we are winning because of the 
illegality of what is being done by our foreign competitors in the 
steel industry.
  What we are asking is not to go to a low rate of imports; what we are 
asking is to go to a rate of import into this country, a share of 
imports in the domestic market equal to a level that has only been 
reached four times in the past 30 years. So arguably we are setting the 
bar very high.
  We are not going in to protect an industry that is inefficient or 
that is uncompetitive. The steel industry today is the most productive, 
competitive, and efficient steel industry in the world. Yet they are 
being wiped out by subsidized, illegally dumped steel, costing us 
thousands of good-paying jobs and thousands of families not going home 
with paychecks to support their children.
  I am very hopeful that we can get a bipartisan vote today to at least 
move to proceed to the bill. That is all this vote does. It says let's 
put this issue front and center in the Senate, let's point out to our 
competitors around the globe that the Senate is not going to step aside 
and allow this illegal dumping to continue, that we are going to debate 
it, that we take this issue very seriously, and that we are not going 
to allow this kind of illegal action to continue.
  I know my 3 minutes are up. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 975 and to urge my colleagues, in the strongest terms possible, to 
vote no on cloture. Let me explain why.
  Our steel industry faces a serious challenge as a result of foreign 
competition. That challenge stems from the persistent overcapacity in 
the global steel industry that is the legacy of decades of foreign 
government interventionism.
  The quota bill, however, does nothing to eliminate this overcapacity. 
What the quota bill does do is simply lock in a certain share of our 
market--the quota amount--for foreign imports at a vastly inflated 
price.
  According to a study by the Institute for International Economics, 
this bill would raise steel import prices by about $29 a ton. This 
represents a windfall of $800 million to the lucky foreign producers 
who get their goods into the United States under the quota, with the 
price tag being paid by the American people.
  While the bill does enrich certain foreign producers, it also poses a 
grave threat to our economy. For every 1 job in the steel industry, 
there are 40 jobs in the steel-using industries. These 40 workers 
manufacture autos, industrial machinery, kitchen appliances, and other 
products. All these jobs will be at risk as a result of the quota bill, 
because this legislation seeks arbitrary limits on the amount of steel 
coming

[[Page S7394]]

into our country. And the quotas apply regardless of domestic demand 
and regardless of whether the type of steel is even produced in the 
United States.
  To make matters worse, this measure would actually help foreign 
companies that compete against American steel-using industries both in 
the United States and abroad. For instance, U.S. automakers would be 
forced to pay higher prices for steel than their foreign competitors. 
This would disadvantage American companies in our market and in the 
foreign markets in which they compete. The impact on jobs and on the 
economy could be severe.
  This bill would also put us at risk of retaliation by our trading 
partners. Our farmers are well aware of this risk. That is why 21 
leading agriculture groups signed a letter last week stating their 
strong opposition to this legislation. These include the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, the 
National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association, and others. As these groups understand all too well, 
passage of this legislation will threaten our access to foreign markets 
at a time when these markets are most needed for our businesses and our 
farmers.
  If we decide to go down the path of quotas, we must also keep in mind 
that the price will ultimately be paid by the American consumer.
  I yield myself 1 more minute.
  By raising the average price of products made with steel, the quota 
constitutes an artificial tax on ordinary Americans regardless of 
wealth or income. Keep in mind that the tax will not be insignificant. 
According to the Institute of International Economics study, the bill 
will, at most, save 1,700 jobs in the steel industry but will do so at 
a cost to the economy of about $800,000 a job. For us to put such a 
burden on the American people is unconscionable.
  With that said, let us not forget that the import surge the quotas 
are designed to address appears to be over. In fact, imports of all 
steel products for the first 4 months of this year were below the 
imports for the same period in 1997, well before the surge began.
  I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me address one last point.
  For some of my colleagues, this may be seen as a free vote. I, like 
many, hope the President will have the courage to veto this legislation 
if it does pass. But we have to remember that the American people sent 
us to Congress to further their national interests. Let's not 
disappoint them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
junior Senator from West Virginia, who has been a tremendous leader on 
this issue.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, who equally 
has been a distinguished leader on this issue.
  Mr. President, the previous speaker, my esteemed chairman of the 
Finance Committee, talked about voting on a quota bill. We are not 
voting on a quota bill today. We are voting on a motion to proceed. 
This whole steel situation is very complex. Most States do not produce 
steel, and a lot of people do not know about some of the complexities.
  We deserve debate on this. Traditionally, in the Senate we do that. 
That is what we are here for, to iron out issues in a rational way.
  The steel crisis is not over. It is not over at all. You talk to any 
steel CEO. They know it is not over. I will just give one statistic. 
That is all I will give.
  If you take the first 4 months of 1999, which brings us almost up to 
today, versus the first 4 months of 1998, which was the worst of the 
steel crisis, yes, the steel import crisis has abated a little bit, but 
only 5 percent from the all-time historic high in the dumping of 
subsidized steel. It has decreased by a total of 5 percent across the 
steel front.

  So the crisis remains with us. It is a very serious matter. It 
disrupts and undoes communities, sections of States across this 
country, not just West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Utah, but the rest 
of them. I do not think we have done what we could have done to enforce 
our trade laws. They are very clear. The administration has not done 
what it could have done. But that day is past. So we have to do what we 
have to do, and that brings us to the quota bill. This is not the bill 
itself; this is the motion to proceed to discuss what we are going to 
do as a result of that vote.
  I think we have a moral obligation to our steelworkers and to 
ourselves to honorably and fairly discuss something that is very 
complex and which needs our very closest attention.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with a measure of respect for all 
the parties to this question before us but with one absolute 
conviction, which is that what is proposed with this legislation, what 
has passed the House of Representatives, is illegal under international 
law. That, sir, is a law we created as the one party that emerged from 
World War II with its economy intact and the lesson of the 
protectionism that began on this floor, sir, in 1930 with the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff Act. It spread throughout the world. If you want a short 
list of the causes of the Second World War, that was one. The American 
leaders, during the 1930s, with Cordell Hull, began the trade 
agreements program; and then we had hoped to have an international 
trade organization as part of a triad with the International Monetary 
Fund and the World Bank. Again, it failed in the Finance Committee. But 
in Geneva, a temporary ad hoc arrangement was put together, the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; it was temporary for about 45 years. 
But we acquired great respect for the rules, and 51 years ago, sir, 
article 11 of the General Agreement stated:

       No prohibitions or restrictions, other than duties or other 
     charges, can be made through import quotas, export licenses, 
     or other measures. None shall be instituted or maintained by 
     any contracting party on the importation of any product.

  Now, sir, if we were to do this, there would be immediate 
retaliation. And it would be illegal. It is uncalled for. The law says 
you may not do what is being proposed, and other parties, as former 
Senator Baker would say, ``having no dog in this fight,'' would find 
themselves retaliated against, as would the agricultural industry. I 
plead, let's abide by the laws we helped to create.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield to the senior Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I am 
one of the original cosponsors of the quota bill. I urge my colleagues 
to support cloture. I compliment my very able colleague, Jay 
Rockefeller, for his diligent work on this matter. I also compliment 
Mr. Santorum, our colleague from Pennsylvania, for his equally good 
work.
  The quota bill is a critical measure in addressing the steel import 
crisis that is confronting U.S. steel mills, and I am mystified by 
statements suggesting that the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Bill is a 
competing interest against the quota bill.
  I am here to set the record straight.
  As a result of global financial chaos, in 1998, a record level of 40 
million tons of cheap and illegally dumped imported steel flooded the 
U.S. market. That represents an 83 percent increase over the 23 million 
tons average for the previous eight years! The result has been the loss 
of 10,000 steel jobs, and the bankruptcy of several U.S. steel mills.
  While both bills are before the Senate because of the steel import 
crisis--one has been passed and the conferees thereon were appointed 
yesterday--the quota bill and the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Bill 
serve vastly different purposes, and both deserve support from every 
member in the Senate.
  The quota bill is a long-term solution to the steel import crisis. 
The quota

[[Page S7395]]

bill would cap steel imports at a level that equals the average amount 
of steel that came into U.S. markets in 1995, 1996, and the first half 
of 1997. The measure would take effect immediately and prohibit any 
country from sending more steel to the United States than it did in 
July of 1997. The quotas would terminate in three years. The President 
could achieve these import limits by imposing quotas, tariff 
surcharges, negotiated enforceable voluntary export restraint 
agreements, or other means.
  The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program which passed the Senate 
last week is a helping hand to U.S. steel mills that have been injured 
by the cheap and illegal imports. It is a short-term assistance program 
to aid U.S. steel mills during their hour of need. It does not address 
the underlying critical problem of both cheap and illegally dumped 
imported steel that continues to adversely impact U.S. steel mills. 
While essential to aiding thousands of hardworking Americans, the steel 
loan guarantee program is no substitute, nor was it intended to be, for 
the long-term solution that is offered by the quota bill.
  The House of Representatives passed the quota bill by a vote of 289 
yeas to 141 nays. Now it is the Senate's turn to send a vigorous 
message to our trading partners that this nation will not idly sit by 
while another American industry is shipped abroad.
  Last week, I strongly urged my colleagues to support the Emergency 
Steel Loan Guarantee Program. It is a fair and important measure for 
the U.S. steel industry and thousands of hardworking Americans. Let 
there be no mistake: members can not hide behind one vote and claim to 
have solved the crisis in our domestic steel industry. The Senate must 
act to help the U.S. steel industry on a long-term basis as well. This 
Senate acted wisely in passing the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee 
Program. It provides a cash flow for financially damaged steel 
companies and it will enable them to invest in further modernization. 
It will save jobs that are at risk from illegal imports. Likewise, this 
Senate should ensure that the need for the loan guarantee program is 
minimized by casting a vote that will stop the illegal dumping of 
foreign steel. The quota bill will stop the cheating and finally 
provide U.S. steel mills with an international playing field that is 
fair.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, 
for his courtesy and kindness. I thank my colleague from West Virginia, 
Mr. Rockefeller, for his leadership in this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a very major and 
very dangerous revision of U.S. trade policy, and we are going to do it 
without the benefit of a hearing and, quite frankly, we are doing it 
under great political pressure. That is not a very good environment.
  If we give in to pressure to enact quota legislation, we will do 
great harm. I believe the proponents are all acting, of course, with 
the best of intentions. Yet we must not allow our desire to help a 
troubled industry in the short term do long-term damage to our economy.
  Sixty-nine years ago, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, 
and they did it with the best of good intentions. Its aim was to help 
the American farmer, with a limited upward revision of tariffs on 
foreign produce. But it had the opposite effect. It strangled foreign 
trade. It deepened and widened the severity of the Great Depression.

  Other countries faced with deficits and exports had to pay for their 
imports, and they responded by applying quotas and embargoes on 
American goods.
  I think the history of the depth and the severity of the retaliation 
against U.S. agricultural products from that period is shocking, 
because our foreign buyers stopped buying our agricultural products in 
retaliation.
  In 1930, the United States exported just over $1 billion worth of 
agricultural goods. By 1932 that amount had been cut in half. Almost 
every American export sector was hit by foreign retaliation but 
particularly agriculture.
  As the United States agricultural exports fell in the face of foreign 
retaliation, farm prices fell sharply, weakening the solvency of our 
rural banks. Their weakened condition undermined deposit confidence 
leading to the runs on the banks and bank failures, and ultimately the 
contraction of money supply.
  Farm prices for many agricultural products are already at rock bottom 
levels. Can we in good conscience put so much of our economy at risk 
with this legislation?
  In 1998, the United States exported agricultural products worth $53 
billion, accounting for one-third of America's total agricultural 
products, and nearly 1 million jobs. Agriculture is perhaps the most 
vulnerable sector of our economy to foreign retaliation, and our 
trading partners know it.
  Retaliation is not a thing of the past. It is a hardball tactic that 
is frequently used as an instrument of national policy. Just look at 
the recent history. Japan threatened to retaliate when we took some 
action against them. In 1983, China temporarily stopped buying U.S. 
wheat in retaliation of another President's protectionist policies.
  We have to learn from the past, and we have to say if it is bad for 
agriculture, it is bad for America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.
  I would like to address a question to the chairman of the committee 
to see if he would be willing to consider this question. It has to do 
with a bill which the good Senator from Delaware introduced to modify 
section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 in order to strengthen the utility 
of that section.
  I am wondering whether or not on this bill, which was ordered 
reported, I understand, by the Finance Committee last Wednesday--it is 
the chairman's intention to press for Senate consideration.
  Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished colleague that is my intent. We 
think it is a valuable change. We hope to have it on the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I say that the Senator from New York offered that 
legislation, and it was welcomed by the chairman. It is a bipartisan 
measure.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, imposing quotas on the importation of 
foreign steel to protect some U.S. steel producers will have several 
negative effects on the domestic and world economy.
  The best way to combat illegal trade practices is to adopt trade laws 
that are compatible with World Trade Organization rules. We already 
have in place section 201, dealing with temporary import surges and 
section 301, regarding anti-dumping. They have both proven effective in 
recent months in altering the steel trade balance.
  Steel imports are already subject to over 100 outstanding antidumping 
and countervailing duty orders. Congress should not judge the outcome 
of these investigations by imposing quotas on top of existing trade 
rules. Maintaining consistency in our trade policy is of utmost 
importance, given that the U.S. is the world's largest trading country. 
Furthermore, The United States will host the WTO ministerial meeting in 
Seattle later this year. The success of these ongoing international 
trade talks depends on our credibility and compliance with those rules.
  We must recognize that imposing on steel imports may affect other 
important U.S. industries as well. In Mississippi there are wire 
producers, shipbuilders and manufacturers who provide thousands of jobs 
and whose products contribute to our strong U.S. economy. And, when 
retaliations occur as a result of our implementation of quotas, they 
will undoubtedly affect other sectors of our economy, including 
agriculture.
  In Mississippi alone agriculture exports of cotton, soybeans, 
poultry, rice and meat account for $850 million and 13,900 jobs 
according to the USDA and Census Bureau. The American Farm Bureau 
reports that exports constitute more than one-third of all U.S. 
agricultural sales. More than 1 million Americans today have jobs 
dependent on U.S.

[[Page S7396]]

agricultural exports, including farming, food processing and 
transportation.
  The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports reports that every 
one billion dollars in exports helps create as many as 17,000 new jobs. 
In light of the market crises abroad in Asia, Russia, and the New 
Independent States of the former Soviet Union, it is more important 
than ever to assist the agricultural community by maintaining its 
access to the world's markets. This is the key to economic recovery of 
the farm sector.
  U.S. agricultural and manufacturing exports totaled more than $680 
billion last year. If Congress imposes quotas inconsistent with WTO 
rules, all U.S. industries may be targets for retaliation, putting at 
risk the revenues and jobs these industries and their exports produce. 
It is these very WTO agreements which enable our trading partners to 
retaliate against our exports.
  This legislation's protection for the specialized steel industry will 
lead to protectionism. For the good of all U.S. industries--as well as 
agriculture--open markets, free, and fair trade, and a rules-based 
international trading system ought to be the principles on which we 
base our trade laws.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition 
to the steel quota bill, H.R. 975. Simply put, steel quotas are wrong. 
The protectionist measures proposed in this legislation represent a 
failed trade policy that the United States abandoned long ago. For the 
last 50 years, the United States has been the world's leading advocate 
of open markets. At the same time, we have grown to be the strongest 
and most productive economy on earth. Now is not the time for this 
government to reverse an economic policy that has served it so well.
  Steel quotas are wrong for the world's economy, and by definition 
America's economy. In this era of global business, open markets are 
essential to international prosperity. In the midst of the Asian 
economic crisis, American leadership in keeping markets open has 
prevented a global financial meltdown. The U.S. and its allies have 
spent years developing an international trading system. Treasury 
Secretary Robert Rubin was not exaggerating last week when he warned 
that the steel quota bill could set off a wave of market access 
restrictions that would undermine this system and threaten the world's 
financial health.
  Steel quotas are also wrong for the American economy. There is no 
question that open markets present some difficult challenges for 
American companies. They lead to stiffer competition and force greater 
efficiency. But open markets also mean greater opportunities. As a 
nation, we are succeeding. The United States is the strongest and most 
prosperous nation on earth. We have the most skilled workforce, the 
most productive factories and the most innovative thinkers anywhere in 
the world. Our commitment to open markets has played a key role in this 
success.
  In my home state of Alaska, for example, international trade is a 
vital part of the economy. Last year, Alaskan companies exported more 
than 750 million dollars worth of merchandise to foreign countries. And 
that was an off year in my state because of the Asian flue--in most 
years, our merchandise exports total nearly 1 billion dollars.
  For many reasons, the quota bill will do more harm to the American 
economy than good. First, the steel quota bill will provoke foreign 
countries to retaliate against our exports. And the United States will 
be in no position to complain. The international trading system--the 
one that we played a leading role in creating--authorizes countries to 
retaliate against those who erect trade barriers such as quotas. This 
retaliation will be devastating to our farmers and factory workers. It 
will cost many more American jobs than it will save. As American 
companies lose sales abroad, they will be forced to cut jobs and close 
doors at home.
  Second, the quota bill will deny American manufacturers the steel 
they need to make their products. Domestic steel companies are only 
able to meet about 75 percent of the demand for steel in this country. 
As a result, steel quotas could create dangerous steel shortages--
shortages that hurt the oil industry in Alaska. In addition, the quota 
bill is completely insensitive to the types of steel that American 
companies need. There are many special types of steel that simply are 
not made in the U.S. Quotas could completely deny American companies 
access to those special types of steel, forcing them to reduce the 
quality of their products or move their production overseas.
  Finally, by making a critical raw material more expensive, steel 
quotas will put many of our products at a world market disadvantage. 
Because American manufacturers will be forced to pay more for steel 
than their foreign competitors, their products will be more expensive. 
Again, the steel quota bill will result in lost sales abroad and lost 
jobs at home.
  For all of these reasons, we must not pass the steel quota bill. It 
is wrong for the United States and wrong for the world's economy. As 
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan recently warned, it will indeed be a 
great tragedy if we pass this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for cloture on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 975 in order to bring this issue to the floor.
  That is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to insure a debate on 
how to address the steel import crisis in a timely manner.
  The motion to proceed isn't the end point. It is not final passage. 
Only if the motion to proceed is adopted can we debate how to act 
effectively and legally to avoid the kind of surges in steel imports 
which have illegally impacted our steel industry.
  Ms. MUKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Stop Illegal 
Steel Trade Act. This legislation will enable us to stand up for steel. 
It will create a level playing field for the American steel industry 
and our steel workers.
  We must stand up for steel.
  Today, our steel industry and steel workers are under attack by 
illegal and unfair trading practices. Brazil, Russia, and Japan have 
dumped cheap steel on the American market that has drastically impacted 
the price of steel. Over the last year and a half steel imports have 
increased by 47 percent. The producer price index for all steel mill 
products is down 9 percent. This is the largest decline in nearly 20 
years. If this continues, American steel mills will simply not survive.
  I have always been for free trade as long as it's fair trade. There 
has to be equal access and opportunity and a level playing field for 
American industry. But I cannot sit by and allow an industry that is 
fundamental to the American economy to be destroyed by what amounts to 
predatory trade practices. Our steel industry is ready and willing to 
compete--but they can't compete against unfair, illegal, predatory 
trade practices.
  Steel is a part of our everyday life--we drive steel cars, work in 
steel buildings, and our national security is protected by steel 
aircraft carriers. We must do everything we can to preserve our steel 
industry.
  That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation we are 
considering today. This bill would place restrictions on steel imports 
for three years. It also authorizes the President to take steps to 
ensure that steel imports return to pre-crisis levels. The Secretaries 
of the Treasury and Commerce will enforce the regulations on steel 
imports. I think these are important steps to revitalize our steel 
industry.
  We owe it our hardworking, dedicated steel workers. The work week of 
many at Bethlehem Steel has been shortened. This means less food on the 
table. This means late mortgages, rents, and car payments. And all this 
because foreign countries are desperately trying to stabilize their own 
economies on the backs of our steel workers.
  These countries are not going to throw our steel industry a curve 
ball. With this legislation we will force Japan, Brazil, and Russia to 
play fair. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and 
stand up in steel.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
relatively briefly on the steel import limitation bill.
  Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 
289-141. While this quota legislation is a very

[[Page S7397]]

strong measure, it reflects the necessity that strong action be taken 
to enforce U.S. trade laws to stop an avalanche of dumping by foreign 
countries.
  We have seen the decimation and disintegration of the American steel 
industry by unfair foreign imports. Twenty years ago, in 1979, 
approximately 453,000 steelworkers were employed. Today that figure is 
about 160,000. Some $50 billion has been invested by the American steel 
industry to modernize, but there is no way that the American steel 
industry can compete with dumped goods, the sale of goods in the United 
States at prices lower than the price at which such goods are being 
sold by the producing companies in their own country or in some other 
country. These goods come into the United States from a number of 
countries--from Russia, from Brazil, from Ukraine, from South Africa 
and from China--at prices less than the cost of production. This is the 
antithesis of fair trade.
  This situation requires a change. Twelve executives from American 
steel companies sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce Daley in 
response to his comment last week that the steel crisis is over--said 
Secretary Daley. This letter, dated June 18, 1999, says, in pertinent 
part, the following:

       The steel industry started some seven actions for 
     antidumping, and six of those were subjected to suspension 
     agreements by the Department of Commerce, to the detriment of 
     the steel companies.

  I ask unanimous consent that this chart on steel imports and 
suspension agreement be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Steel import limitations, or quotas, provide for a 
drastic remedy. Along with the steel industry, other industries in the 
United States have been victimized by the failure to enforce U.S. trade 
laws.
  I have, for the past 15 years, proposed legislation which would 
authorize equitable relief to provide for enforcement of the U.S. trade 
laws. At the present time, if complaints are filed with the 
International Trade Commission, it takes up to a year--or more--to have 
those matters resolved. An equitable action, a court of equity, would 
result in having these matters resolved in the course of a few weeks.
  Until that is done, it appears to be necessary for some very decisive 
action. This is why I cosponsored the steel import limitation bill.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                                                      STEEL IMPORTS AND SUSPENSION AGREEMENTS: SUMMARY OF FLAT-ROLLED SUSPENSION AGREEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Suspension       Estimated                                   Current
                                                                                                             Final ad      agreement      volumes w/       Agreement     Estimated      import
             Year of filing                          Product                          Country                margins        volumes     orders (metric   minimum price   fair price   value ($/
                                                                                                            (percent)    (metric tons)       tons)          ($/MT)         ($/MT)        MT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996...................................  Plate CTL......................  China..........................   17-129             141,000               0             308          505          397
1996...................................  Plate CTL......................  Russia.........................   54-185              94,000           6,466         275-330          505          352
1996...................................  Plate CTL......................  S. Africa......................    26-51                  NA           3,150              NA          505          331
1996...................................  Plate CTL......................  Ukraine........................   81-238             148,520          32,151         314-466          505          516
1998...................................  Hot-Rolled.....................  Russia.........................   71-218             750,000          28,933             255          397          236
1998...................................  Hot-Rolled.....................  Brazil.........................    51-71             295,000             310              NA          397          227
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
cloture motion to proceed to H.R. 975, the Steel Import bill. I do so 
for three reasons. First, I think that this legislation is 
protectionist and invites retaliation under the World Trade 
Organization; second, I believe that it may endanger the health and 
stability of the international economy; and, third, I believe that it 
may endanger the health and stability of the U.S. economy, including 
the steel industry it is intended to protect.
  I understand the appeal of this legislation for those who support it, 
and believe that they are well intentioned in wishing to see 
legislation passed which protects the U.S. steel industry.
  As supporters of this legislation have pointed out, there was an 
undeniable surge in steel imports into the United States last year. 
Over the past three years, economic instability in East Asia, Russia, 
and Latin America have resulted in a weakening of the world steel 
market. According to the Congressional Research Service, between August 
1997 and August 1998, imports surged almost 80%.
  But today, it is important to note, steel imports have returned to 
their pre-crisis levels, down roughly 44% in April 1999 since last 
August's peak, according to the office of the United States Trade 
Representative.
  Where I disagree with supporters of this legislation, then, is that 
although I too believe that some complaints about unfair competition 
and unfair trade practices are, of course, warranted, the solution to 
those complaints found in this bill--the imposition of unyielding 
import quotas--is an approach which I believe to be counterproductive 
and even potentially harmful to the health of the U.S. economy.
  First, the protectionism sought by this bill would put the United 
States in violation of world trade rules, and would invite retaliation 
against U.S. producers of a range of goods in overseas markets, 
jeopardizing jobs at home.
  The World Trade Organization permits the application of ``safeguard 
measures'' such as quotas only in very specific circumstances, and 
never unilaterally. In the absence of a determination that the product 
in question is being imported in such increased quantities as to cause 
or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry, 
unilateral measures such as those included in this bill are not 
permitted. And if a nation takes such a unilateral measure, the 
countries affected are allowed to take retaliatory measures.
  Thus, if this legislation is enacted, the United States would face 
the real possibility of retaliation by the world's steel exporting 
countries. Under the WTO rules, other countries will have the right to 
retaliate against our exports. They could put at risk our most 
competitive sectors--such as agriculture, high-tech, or 
pharmaceuticals.
  In fact, a June 18 letter signed by the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, among others, states that:

       At a time when U.S. farmers are facing severe financial 
     hardships, continued access to global markets Is critical to 
     preserve farm income . . . since growth for the U.S. 
     agricultural sector hinges on access to world markets, 
     passing legislation that violates the WTO threatens economic 
     growth in the farm sector.

  In addition, there could also be retaliation against U.S. products 
that use steel, such as automobiles, heavy machinery, or construction. 
For example, according to a letter I received from Boeing:

       In 1999 we expect to deliver approximately $18 billion in 
     airplanes to international customers, many of whom are 
     struggling to purchase these planes as a result of the Asian 
     financial crisis. A number of these airplane deliveries could 
     be at risk if new limits on imported steel are imposed.

  The unilateral protectionism embodied in this bill would undermine 
the international trading system and the institutions, rules, and 
regulations to safeguard the international economy that the United 
States has worked so hard to put into place over the past fifty years. 
As we have seen in numerous cases, these institutions and rules have 
helped the U.S. gain market access when other nations sought to prevent 
it, and have helped the U.S. economy to grow and created numerous jobs 
here in the United States.
  As the world's largest trading nation, U.S. interests are best served 
by supporting--not undermining--the rules-based international economic 
and trading system.
  This leads me to my second point, and the second reason I am opposed 
to this legislation: I believe that this legislation threatens to 
undermine the health and stability of the international economy, and 
with it the base

[[Page S7398]]

for much of America's current economic prosperity. Free trade has been 
a prime ingredient in the eight year U.S. economic boom.
  Moreover, in the past year we have begun to turn the corner on a 
global economic crisis. Maintaining open world markets is vital to 
global recovery in Asia, Russia, Brazil, and elsewhere. These countries 
have not closed their markets to U.S. products despite the economic 
pressures they have faced in the past several years. If the U.S. takes 
a significant step towards protectionism, it will set off a global 
chain-reaction.
  Indeed, according to a May 25 letter I received from Raymond 
Chretien, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, passage of this 
legislation:

       . . . would set a protectionist precedent that would 
     encourage other industries, in the U.S. and other countries, 
     to seek unilateral relief outside of legitimate, established, 
     trade remedies. The world economy, and workers in affected 
     countries, can ill afford the turmoil that could ensure in 
     international commerce.
  According to Brookings Analyst Robert Crandall, HR 975 is ``one of 
the most blatantly projectionist pieces of legislation since the 
1930s''. I do not believe that a single member of this body wants the 
United States, or the international economy, to risk a return to those 
days of global depression.
  Finally, although the quotas might have some marginal palliative 
effect for some of the old-line steel factories, they would have a far 
larger effect on the overall health and well-being of the U.S. economy, 
and threaten to harm countless other U.S. workers and consumers.
  This is the third reason I oppose this bill: I believe that it is bad 
for the U.S. economy, including the steel industry.
  To take one example, steel import quotas would increase the price of 
steel used by the automobile industry, harming the auto industry and 
auto workers, and would in turn show up in higher auto sticker prices, 
harming U.S. consumers hoping to be able to purchase reasonably priced 
cars.
  In short, steel import quotas will undermine U.S. manufacturing 
competitiveness in a range of industries and business that rely on 
steel, from metal fabrication to transport to industrial machinery to 
construction; industries that in toto employ over 8 million workers.
  For example, I received a letter from the Aggressive Engineering 
Corporation, a small California company that serves military and 
commercial industry in their metal stamping needs. According to this 
letter:

       Our company relies on steel from domestic producers. 
     However, U.S. steel producers are able to supply only about 
     75% of the demand for steel, leaving a yearly shortfall of 30 
     million tons. In order to maintain our operations in the 
     United States, we depend on foreign steel. . .While we all 
     agree that it is important to maintain U.S. jobs and job 
     growth, steel is no less important than other sectors. Please 
     remember that steel-using industries employ more than 40 
     American workers for every worker in the steel industry. 
     Quotas do not work. They will harm consumers and steel-
     consuming industries to a much greater extent than they could 
     ever help steel producers or steelworkers.

  It is also important to keep in mind that although many of the old-
line steel mills face serious difficulties, that is not the same as 
saying that overall the U.S. steel industry is in trouble. In fact, 
many of the problems faced by old-line steel mills stem less from 
import problems than from decades-old mills that are unable to compete 
with the efficient new mini-mills located right here in the United 
States. Even as the U.S. faced the ``import surge'' last year, U.S. 
mills rolled out 102 million tons of steel in 1998, the second highest 
total in the past two decades.
  In addition, The Wall Street Journal has reported that 25% of the 
steel entering the United States last year was bought by American 
steelmakers, who otherwise could not have met the demands of their 
customers.
  In other words, while seeking to protect the steel industry, this 
legislation could in fact harm the industry by protecting the least 
efficient producers at the expense of the more efficient, and by 
preventing American steelmakers from getting access to the steel they 
need to meet customer demand.
  In response to this surge in imports last year, earlier this year the 
Administration put in place an aggressive Steel Action Plan to strictly 
enforce the trade laws already on the books; enter into new bilateral 
agreements with Japan, Russia, and Korea regarding their steel imports 
to the United States; create new sources of early import data and an 
active monitoring of safeguards; and lend support for the Section 201 
safeguard law.
  In addition, the Department of Commerce determination on the import 
surge this February, recently supported by a finding of the 
International Trade Commission, has paved the way for the 
Administration to slap duties on Japanese and Brazilian steel and 
forced Russia to restrict its imports.
  I believe that the Administration's response has been tough but fair. 
And I believe that the proof of the effectiveness of this response is 
in the pudding: By all accounts the steel import crisis is over, with 
imports having receded back to pre-crisis levels.
  Under these circumstances--passing potentially harmful quota 
legislation after the crisis has passed--is the wrong way to approach 
this issue, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the 
cloture motion to proceed to this bill.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, the Senate will cast a very 
important vote on whether we will stand up and honor our commitments to 
United States trade policies, or enact protectionist trade measures on 
steel imports that will have little or no favorable effect on the steel 
industry, yet will ultimately harm many segments of our nation's 
economy.
  Let me first stipulate one point--I am now, and I always have been, a 
strong supporter of Ohio's steel industry. In fact, I believe my 
actions prove that I have been ``standing up for steel'' for two 
decades.
  My support for Ohio's steel industry goes back to the days when I was 
Mayor of Cleveland.
  In the early 1980s, when steel imports peaked at nearly 27% and U.S. 
steelmakers were losing billions of dollars in revenue, I lobbied 
President Reagan for Voluntary Restraint Agreements (VRAs) in order to 
give the domestic industry five years of breathing room to modernize 
and restructure. I rallied with the steelworkers in Cleveland's Public 
Square to tell America about how our steel industry was being dumped 
on.
  A year before the VRA program was set to expire, I began lobbying 
then-Vice President Bush for a temporary extension, to give the steel 
industry some protection while the Administration attempted to 
negotiate a multilateral steel agreement aimed at eliminating unfair 
foreign practices.
  All throughout 1988, I fought for the VRA extension. My efforts were 
successful, because in 1989, President Bush agreed to extend the VRAs 
two and a half years.
  And two years later, after I was elected Governor, I was back to 
lobby the Bush Administration to ensure that all of our trade laws 
would be vigorously enforced after the extended VRAs finally expired in 
1992.
  In 1991, I was the first Governor in the United States to set up a 
Steel Industry Advisory Commission--a public-private partnership 
designed to strengthen ties among the steel industry, the state of 
Ohio, and its citizens.
  I also worked to bring steel companies, such as North Star Steel, to 
Ohio in order to create more, good-paying jobs. I have been there to 
lead the fight--to make sure that the federal government did not run 
roughshod over our steel industry.
  In May 1992, I attended the opening of the U.S. Steel/Kobe Blast 
Furnace in Lorain, Ohio--a $100 million investment with 2,800 jobs that 
almost didn't happen. The EPA was going to halt the project, but I went 
straight to the White House and let them know that what the EPA was 
proposing in Ohio was ridiculous.
  Ohio is now the largest steel-producing state in the country, a 
development I'm proud to say occurred during my tenure as Governor.
  Last year, a building where state agencies were going to be located 
was built, and foreign steel was used in place of domestic steel in 
violation of state law. State law called for a fine of $3,000, but I 
insisted that the entity responsible for building this facility pay 
$50,000. I doubt there are very few other public officials in the 
country who would enforce an existing law so vigorously.
  When imports of steel shot up last year, and Ohio steel producers 
started

[[Page S7399]]

to suffer, I was one of the first elected officials to speak out. I 
wrote the President several times, twice on my own and once with other 
governors, urging him to take all appropriate action under our trade 
laws to combat steel dumping. I also supported a resolution in the Ohio 
legislature urging the President to take action.
  My support for the steel industry has been long-standing, and I dare 
say it is matched by few individuals. That's why I look seriously upon 
any proposal that purports to help this important industry.
  The bill that is before the Senate today would impose a monthly limit 
on steel imports for the next 3 years. The quotas would apply to all 
steel mill products from all countries, regardless of whether they have 
engaged in dumping or not.
  I have given this legislation much thought and careful consideration, 
and on its merits, I cannot vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. President, I have dedicated my entire 33-year public career to 
serving the people of Ohio. I am the last person who would want to see 
the Ohio steel industry and good-paying jobs dry up and go away. I 
would not vote against this Quota Bill if I believed it was a 
productive solution that would save jobs in my state.
  It is because I care about Ohio's workers that I must oppose the 
Quota Bill today. I wish I could tell Ohio's and our nation's 
steelworkers that the Quota Bill would save steel jobs. I cannot. I 
wish I could tell them that the Quota Bill would give the industry a 
quick fix. It will not.
  Not only is the Quota Bill bad policy, but voting for it today would 
be an exercise in futility, because we already know that the President 
will veto it.
  In addition, I am concerned that too much emphasis has been placed on 
this legislation as being some sort of panacea that will help address 
all of the steel industry's problems. The fact of the matter is, if 
this legislation becomes law, it will only serve to compound the 
industry's problems.
  Passage of this bill will provide a false sense of relief, when what 
we should really be doing is concentrating our efforts on a long-term 
solution--one that will make a difference in addressing the viability 
of our nation's steel industry within the framework of existing law.
  I have often said that in Ohio, we are no longer the ``Rust Belt'' we 
are the ``Jobs and Productivity Belt.'' We made this transition thanks 
in part to the efforts of the steel industry to modernize and become 
more efficient and competitive.
  And, it's easy to do when you have good labor-management relations 
which promotes empowerment, when you have businesses willing to invest 
in training and advanced manufacturing technology, and when you have 
partnerships with government and education. It's amazing what you can 
get. It's what has helped contribute to the importance and significance 
of steel in Ohio.
  Overall, the American steel industry is succeeding. It produced 
record levels of steel in 1997 and 1998, and is now more efficient than 
it ever has been. It is strong. Its workers are strong. And it can 
compete in the world marketplace, if the playing field is level.
  That is why it is so important that we continue to work to get other 
countries to follow the American example: to open their markets to 
American goods, to stop subsidizing their national steel industries and 
to stop dumping steel on our market at unfair prices.
  We need all of Ohio's 35,400 steelworkers fighting for this approach, 
and applying the appropriate pressure to get other nations to change 
their protectionist ways.
  However, the minute we succumb to the sort of trade practices that we 
so vehemently oppose, we lose all credibility in the international 
community.
  Most every trade expert will attest that this Quota Bill violates 
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules--rules that are treaty-based and 
to which the United States is bound. Even supporters of this 
legislation must acknowledge that fact.
  Since the bill does violate international trade rules, it would 
invite our largest trading partners to launch major trade cases against 
us, cases that, based on our treaty obligations, we would most surely 
lose.
  This would give our trading partners the right to take retaliatory 
trade actions against us. They could slap high tariffs on all manner of 
American-made products in order to limit our access to their markets or 
kick us out altogether. Such actions would result in job losses in 
American industries that rely heavily on exports, such as agriculture, 
technology and telecommunications and a host of others.
  One industry that would be particularly hard-hit by a trade war is 
agriculture. America's farmers grow and export more food than any other 
farmers in the world. They would be dealt a devastating blow by 
retaliatory action taken against them--probably the most affected 
segment regarding American jobs. In my state of Ohio that's crucial 
because we have some 80,000 farmers.
  It's also important to farmers across the rest of the country. In 
fact, just yesterday, I received a letter from 20 major agriculture 
associations, including American Farm Bureau, outlining their 
opposition to the Quota Bill.
  Moreover, for nearly 60 years the United States has been the primary 
advocate of a free--and, rules-based--system of international trade. 
The United States is constantly urging other countries to respect 
international trade agreements and to comply with WTO decisions.
  The United States has set the example of being the one nation that 
consistently complies with the WTO. Indeed, the United States has won 
19 of the 21 trade cases it has brought to the WTO for dispute 
resolution, such as the recently settled banana case the U.S. brought 
against the European Union.
  How can we expect other countries to abide by international trade 
rules if the United States, the main advocate of those rules, 
flagrantly disregards them itself? If we want a rules-based system of 
international trade to work, so that we can have a level playing field 
across the board on all goods, America must continue to lead by 
example.
  Proponents have argued that even if the Quota Bill violates WTO 
rules, it would take years for any cases filed against us at the WTO to 
run their full course. In the meantime, quotas on steel products would 
give the domestic steel industry some temporary relief from imports in 
order to recover from last year's import surge.
  There are two flaws in that logic. First, imports have dropped off 
dramatically, and are now below the levels that the proponents of the 
Quota Bill seek to establish.
  Second, analysts are predicting that the U.S. will actually have 
steel shortages this summer. This means that the industries that need 
steel to make their products--like the automakers--will not have enough 
steel to build new cars in order to meet consumer demand.
  At the moment, the domestic steel industry can only make enough steel 
to meet 75% of the domestic demand. Not too many people realize that 
the remaining 25% must now be imported from overseas, and of that 
amount, the steel industry imports 25% for its own capacity.
  In fact, there are steel products that many Ohio manufacturers need 
that aren't even made in the United States.
  In short, regardless of what is said, the United States must import 
steel right now in order to meet domestic demand.
  So, what happens under the Quota Bill, when there are steel shortages 
in the United States, while an oversupply of cheap steel remains in the 
rest of the world? It means that America's manufacturers will have to 
pay a comparatively higher price for the steel they need to make their 
finished products, such as cars, machine tools and dish washers.
  As a result, the cost of American-made finished products will be 
higher, while the prices for the same goods made overseas will remain 
low.
  So what will consumers in the United States and around the world do? 
They will do the logical thing: buy cheap, foreign-made goods, and at 
the end of the day, America's manufacturers and workers will lose out, 
and we will be right back at square one. Except this time, even more 
American jobs in a variety of other job sectors will be on the line, 
especially in Ohio.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 465,000 Ohio 
workers in downstream industries that use

[[Page S7400]]

steel. This means that for every Ohioan employed in the steel industry, 
there are 12 other Ohioans who work in steel-using industries and whose 
jobs would be directly jeopardized by the Quota Bill.
  I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of a piece of legislation 
that would have the effect of jeopardizing the jobs of more than half-
a-million Ohioans--including 80,000 farmers I previously mentioned--for 
a Quota bill that will have no long-term positive benefits.
  All in all, this bill could have extremely serious consequences for 
jobs in Ohio.
  When I was Governor of Ohio, one of my four economic development 
initiatives was exports. Because of our actions in the state, Ohio's 
exports increased by more than 62% during the time that I was Governor. 
And as most Americans know, as exports increase, so do jobs.
  Our economy is intertwined with the international marketplace, and it 
becomes even more so on a daily basis.
  As one who has argued vigorously to have others take down their trade 
barriers so we could get our goods into their countries, how can I talk 
about closing down our borders and keeping other products out?
  We have also increased investment in Ohio by foreign companies. 
According to Site Selection magazine, from 1991-1997, Ohio had more 
growth in non-U.S. owned firms than any other state--some 300 new 
manufacturing facilities and plant expansions.
  For me to come out in favor of quotas and trade barriers in today's 
marketplace would be detrimental to the economic well-being and growth 
of Ohio as well as jeopardize jobs in my state.
  What we ought to do is improve the situation that we already have 
within the framework of current law and WTO rules.
  I don't think anyone will deny the fact that the steel industry was 
affected by last year's surge in imports, and this surge was partly the 
result of a series of financial crises in Asia and Russia that 
precipitated a collapse in global demand for steel.
  Naturally, imports were drawn to the United States, where the economy 
and demand for steel remained strong in comparison to the rest of the 
world. Unfortunately, the collapse in global demand was exacerbated 
last summer by the 54-day strike at General Motors, the largest 
consumer of American-made steel.
  However, the oversupply of steel on world markets is not a new 
problem facing the U.S. steel industry. It has been a persistent 
problem that has plagued American steel producers for decades, and it 
is the legacy of 60 years of foreign government intervention in 
domestic steel industries.
  Since the 1930s, other countries have undertaken policies to expand 
their domestic steel-making capacity and employment, regardless of 
market conditions. These policies have included tariffs, quotas, heavy 
government subsidies, state ownership, and government toleration of 
cartel-like behavior.
  The end result has been that foreign steel manufacturers are able to 
produce and sell steel under circumstances that would drive a U.S. 
steel manufacturer out of business.
  Quotas will do nothing to address this fundamental problem. We 
learned from our experience with voluntary restraint agreements (VRAs) 
in the 1980s that restricting steel imports--be it through VRAs or 
quotas--will do little to discourage other countries from subsidizing 
their industries or engaging in other market-distorting practices.
  That's why we ended the VRA's. After trying to match our competitors 
step for step, the United States determined that only through sound 
economic and trade policies would we ever overcome the protectionist 
tendencies of other steel producing nations. That's why we continue to 
press for fair competition before the WTO and why we continue to win 
our cases.
  A good majority of our American steel industry has modernized, 
restructured, and become more efficient in order to compete in the 
global marketplace. They are to be commended for making the decisions 
that make them the best steel industry and the most productive workers 
in the world. As I have said earlier, smart business decisions have 
made Ohio the number one steel state in the nation.
  What we need to do now is level the playing field by going after the 
unfair, market-distorting practices that have insulated foreign steel 
producers from the same market pressures our American steel producers 
face. We need to win our fights in the proper venues and with the facts 
on our side.
  If it is our intention to pass legislation in the Senate, we should 
look at solutions that will truly address problems that exist and that 
will not provoke an all-out ``trade war.''
  To that end, I have been working with the Chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Roth, to develop a legislative solution to deal with 
the global overcapacity of steel that we believe will more reasonably 
address the concerns of America's steel industry.
  I believe the legislation will get to the root of the steel import 
problem, and is the type of solution we should be pursuing, not this 
Quota Bill.
  The Roth bill, the Steel Trade Enforcement Act, would direct the U.S. 
Trade Representative to start an investigation of the unfair practices 
that have protected foreign steel manufacturers from the capital market 
pressures that the American steel industry faces and have protected 
them from true competition.
  Once we identify those countries and practices, the proposal would 
then require the Administration to develop a comprehensive, government-
wide strategy to eliminate those practices. There is a follow-up 
mechanism to make sure that action is taken.
  The Roth bill would also establish a monitoring program to facilitate 
the timely release of data on steel imports. This monitoring program 
could serve as an early warning system for future steel import surges, 
giving industry and the Administration more time to respond. It will 
also put our competitors on notice that the United States is watching.
  The Roth bill also would require the U.S. representatives to the 
international financial institutions--such as the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund--to oppose any financing to steel 
industries abroad. It's not fair to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to 
subsidize the steel industries of our foreign competitors.
  Finally, the Roth bill has a provision dealing with so-called 
``suspension agreements.''
  Under current law, when an antidumping or countervailing duty case is 
under way, the Administration has the authority to go out and negotiate 
a ``suspension agreement'' with the offending country. If the 
Administration is able to reach such an agreement, the pending 
antidumping or countervailing duty case is suspended.
  Many steel companies and workers feel like they have been undercut by 
the recent suspension agreements that the Administration has negotiated 
with Brazil and Russia on hot-rolled steel imports. The industry would 
have much preferred that the pending antidumping cases be taken to 
their full conclusion so that the full antidumping duties could be 
imposed.
  The suspension agreement provision would require that the 
Administration get the support of at least 50% of the industry before 
finalizing any future suspension agreements. I am particularly pleased 
that this provision was added to the bill.
  Mr. President, I believe that Senator Roth's legislation is a 
rational approach to the dumping that the United States has been 
subjected to over the years and is our best bet to effectively deal 
with those nations that subsidize their steel industries.
  However, passage of this quota bill before us today will do nothing 
to assist our domestic steel industry--it will be ruled GATT illegal, 
which will draw retaliatory actions from other nations. In addition, it 
will not prevent future job losses in the steel industry and, in fact, 
could cause job losses in other employment sectors--some with no ties 
to steel whatsoever such as agriculture.
  We must do all that we can to ensure continued economic growth in our 
nation. This legislation does not. Therefore, I cannot support this 
bill.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the midst of the best economy our 
country has ever seen, while we have understandably focused on the good 
news, there has been another story that has only recently begun to get 
the attention it deserves.

[[Page S7401]]

  Thanks to the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Byrd, and 
many of our other colleagues from our country's leading steel producing 
states, the story of American steel workers has been heard. Like so 
many other workers in America's core manufacturing industries, steel 
workers have been struggling with restructuring and modernization that 
has made them among the most productive in the world. But on top of the 
sacrifices--in jobs and job security, in pay, in benefits--they have 
been hit by the one-two punch of the international financial crisis 
over the last couple of years.
  On top of the lost sales overseas, where once booming developing 
nations are no longer able to purchase steel from the U.S., our steel 
workers have watched as those same developing countries have dumped 
their own steel products here, often below the cost of production, 
literally stealing American markets out from under them. So, with lost 
sales at home and abroad, steel workers are losing their jobs as our 
mills cut production and even shut down.
  For the tens of thousands of American workers whose jobs have been 
lost, whose families have been strained to the breaking point, whose 
communities have crumbled, this is not some abstract economic question 
about free trade and open markets. The question is what shall we do to 
help the people who, despite their hard work and sacrifice, are paying 
the ultimate price as the rest of us enjoy the many benefits of the new 
economy.
  The question before us today, is how to deal with the kind of 
economic disruption that has come from a global economy with wide-open 
capital markets and instantaneous communication. The current crisis in 
our domestic steel industry is, at its roots, a crisis of overcapacity 
in the steel industry on a global scale. Too many developing countries 
built too many new steel mills, with less concern about the long term 
economic sense and more interest in the kickbacks and quick bucks to be 
made in the short run.
  I believe that we have been right to respond to the recent 
international financial crisis by providing the IMF and the World Bank 
and other entities with the funds they need to put the international 
financial system back on its feet. But one unfortunate aspect of that 
process, in my mind, is that too many investors who were throwing money 
at ill-prepared and even corrupt developing economies will benefit from 
our attempts to prevent a collapse in the world economy.
  Today, instead of high-rolling international investors, we are asked 
to consider help for those American workers and their families who are 
victims of that international economic crisis, for which they are 
completely blameless. We will be adding insult to that injury if we 
fail to act to help them.
  But while I will vote for the motion to proceed to this bill, Mr. 
President, I could not vote for passage in its current form.
  We already have many anti-dumping actions underway, a time-consuming 
and sometimes frustrating process to be sure, but a process designed to 
guarantee that we hit what we are shooting at--it requires evidence of 
who is dumping what kind of steel, and what the real economic damage 
is. We should continue to pursue those actions as quickly and as 
relentlessly as the law allows.
  Just last week, the Senate passed legislation, brought before us by 
Senator Byrd, that provides $1 billion for the steel industry in loan 
guarantees to help them deal with the current crisis.
  These actions are significant steps in the right direction, and they 
don't have the unintended consequences that the bill before us brings 
with it. Quotas on imported steel violate one of our oldest and most 
basic commitments to the international trading system we have worked so 
long to create. That system, for the most part, has been a key part of 
our current economic success.
  If we impose unilateral quotas on other countries' steel exports--
without showing any specific illegal practices or any direct economic 
damages--we will seriously weaken our leadership in international trade 
when we are fighting so hard to open other markets to our products. 
Chief among those products are our agricultural products, Mr. 
President, but virtually all of our exports are exposed to a trade war 
with other countries if we respond to the very real problems of our 
domestic steel industry by unilaterally imposing quotas.
  That does not mean we cannot and should not do more to protect 
American steel mills and steel workers from the unfair and illegal 
trade practices of other countries. But I hope if we can proceed to a 
real debate on this issue that we can formulate a more effective way to 
right the wrong that has been done to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. Who yield's time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on 
leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           order of procedure

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, that immediately following the 12:15 vote, Senator Dodd be 
recognized to speak relative to the State Department authorization for 
up to 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that following his 
remarks the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 for the policy 
conferences. I also ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today there be 5 
minutes equally divided for debate on the Feingold amendment, and 
following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Feingold 
amendment, No. 692. I ask unanimous consent that following that vote, 
Senator Helms be recognized in order to offer the managers' amendment 
and it be considered and agreed to.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking member for closing 
remarks, the bill be read a third time, the Senate proceed to vote on 
passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; further, 
that Senator Harkin be recognized after the vote to speak for 20 
minutes regarding the State Department reauthorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered..
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I now ask the manager of the bill for 3 
minutes to speak on the steel quota bill.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
so-called steel quota bill. I think it would be a mistake. I think the 
bill would do more harm than good; I mean more harm than good to our 
entire economy, and I believe also to the steel industry and to the 
steelworkers. I think it would be a serious mistake.
  One would have to figure what happens if we enacted these arbitrary 
quota restraints. Senator Moynihan just mentioned it would be a 
violation of our trading laws. If we do that, that will hurt the steel 
industry indirectly, because we export a lot of steel products. We 
export a lot of tractors, we export a lot of heavy equipment, and we 
export a lot of cars, all of which use steel.
  If we establish arbitrary quotas on what we are going to import, many 
other countries are going to retaliate, and they have the right to do 
so under the WTO. We are going to be violating the trade laws that we 
have agreed to, and there is going to be a response.
  Senator Grassley just mentioned that the biggest response is going to 
be against agriculture. It is kind of the easiest thing to hit. 
Agriculture is very competitive in the export market.
  Farmers all across the country are going to be faced with a loss of 
exports, and they are going to say: Wait a minute. Congress just 
imposed a restriction on steel imports, and, therefore, they are going 
to put restrictions on the amount of wheat, or the amount of grain they 
will import. It would be a serious mistake.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article in today's Washington Times by William Daley, Secretary of 
Commerce.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 22, 1999]

                      Why Trade Quotas Don't Work

                         (By William M. Daley)

       The steel quota legislation now being considered in 
     Congress is a misguided attempt

[[Page S7402]]

     to deal with a problem that is already beginning to go away. 
     Last year, when steel imports, particularly from Japan, 
     Russia, and Brazil, surged by 33 percent over 1997, layoffs 
     mounted and plant closings loomed, the demand for quota 
     legislation to protect businesses and workers was 
     understandable. Today, however, we are beginning to turn the 
     corner on steel imports. And while calls for quota 
     legislation continue, it is clear that this bill is not in 
     the nation's economic interest--nor in the long-term interest 
     of the U.S. steel industry or American steelworkers.
       Make no mistake about it: last year's steel crisis was real 
     and demanded a strong response. The administration acted, 
     adopting a two-prong strategy combining swift and vigorous 
     enforcement of our trade laws with bilateral pressure on our 
     trading partners to reduce their steel exports to the United 
     States. Forty-two antidumping and countervailing duty steel 
     investigations are currently being conducted or have been 
     completed since January. These include investigations on hot-
     rolled steel, carbon steel plate, and three types of 
     stainless steel. In a number of these cases, the Commerce 
     Department provided swifter relief by making early 
     determinations or conducting the case on an expedited 
     schedule. At the same time, senior government officials, 
     including the president himself, have exerted strong 
     bilateral pressure on our trading partners to reduce their 
     steel exports to the United States.
       This strategy is working. Since it was put in place last 
     November, steel imports have fallen dramatically. Total steel 
     imports in April were down 39 percent from last year, with 
     imports of hot-rolled steel, the product covered by cases 
     brought against Japan, Russia and Brazil, down 73 percent. 
     Imports overall are returning to pre-crisis levels. April 
     1999 imports of all steel were 22 percent below April 1998 
     levels, and six percent below April 1997.
       Steel imports during the first four months of 1999 were 
     down 5 percent compared to the first four months of 1998 and 
     4 percent compared to the first four months of 1997. Despite 
     this significant progress, there is a strong effort under way 
     that ignores the success we've seen to date and seeks to 
     impose across-the-board quotas on steel imports.
       Steel quotas, however, will backfire; in the end they will 
     not ensure long-term job security for American steel workers. 
     As a nation, we have a great deal to lose from quotas. The 
     United States is the world's largest exporter--and steel is a 
     significant part of many of these exports. Approximately 20 
     percent of the steel consumed in the United States last year 
     went into products that were later exported, such as heavy 
     machinery, trucks, food processing equipment and so on. The 
     quota bill, however, would violate our international 
     obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and give 
     other steel exporting countries the right to retaliate, 
     perhaps by barring those U.S. exports that use American steel 
     as a way of striking back.
       That would put our domestic steel industry in the middle of 
     a trade war. Many industries depend on both domestic steel 
     and steel imports to stay competitive. In fact, a number of 
     U.S. steel producers themselves import substantial quantities 
     of semifinished steel products. Imposing quotas at 
     legislatively mandated levels could cause layoffs and idled 
     production in a number of steel consuming industries due to 
     shortages of specific steel inputs. Other U.S. industries may 
     also pay a price from a steel quota bill, especially sectors 
     that depend on exports, such as technology, pharmaceuticals 
     and above all, agriculture.
       No one has more to lose from quotas than America's farmers, 
     who grow more and export more than any farmers in the world. 
     More broadly, the repercussions could be serious, for both 
     our economy as a whole and the economies of other countries 
     just now beginning to recover from last year's financial 
     crisis. In fact, by weakening rather than strengthening the 
     international economy, the quota bill will make future import 
     surges, in steel and other industry, more, not less, likely. 
     An international economic recovery, on the other hand, will 
     not only help avoid import surges in other industries, it 
     will also help revive worldwide demand for steel.
       The quota bill is not in our nation's economic interest, 
     and it is not even in the interest of our steel industry and 
     its workers. We have laws that permit us to protect ourselves 
     from unfair competition. We have the will to use them. And we 
     have a strong and effective policy that is working. We should 
     not consider trading all that for an approach that will hurt 
     us in so many different ways.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will read a couple of lines from his 
article. He says:

       No one has more to lose from quotas than America's farmers 
     who grow more and export more than any farmers in the world.

  He also says:

       The quota bill is not in our Nation's economic interest, 
     and it is not even in the interest of our steel industry and 
     its workers.

  He is exactly right. This bill would be a serious mistake.
  The Commerce Department has already taken action against Russia, 
against Brazil, and against Japan. They can impose tariffs up to 28 
percent on Japan for dumping, up to 86 percent on Brazil for dumping, 
and up to 200 percent on Russia for dumping. Already there are 
remedies.
  Incidentally, I might mention that the problem is not near as grave 
as some people have indicated. Steel imports have gone down 72 percent 
from last November, which was an all-time high.
  Again, I don't think the facts warrant passage of this bill. I 
clearly think if people look at the long-term ramifications of passing 
it, agriculture will lose, the American economy will lose, and I really 
think, frankly, the steel industry will lose as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio, a 
great champion of this legislation, 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this bill has great significance to my 
home State of Ohio. Ohio produces and processes more steel than any 
other State in the Nation. Ohio steel companies--115 of them at last 
count--produced and processed steel valued at $5.3 billion in 1996. 
Ohio is second only to Pennsylvania in the number of employed 
steelworkers. At last count we had 35,400 steelworkers in the State of 
Ohio.
  We are here today because foreign steel producers have illegally 
dumped millions and millions of tons of steel into the United States. 
In 1998, 41 million tons were dumped. That represents on average an 83-
percent increase.
  Ohio steel production from the first quarter of 1999 was down 
significantly. Ohio steel shipments during the first quarter of 1999 
were also down nearly 16 percent from the same period in the previous 
year.
  Members of the Senate, all of this is no accident. All of this was 
the result of illegal dumping of steel into the United States.
  Our steel industry, despite being a highly efficient and globally 
competitive industry, is in trouble. I have heard from and I have 
talked directly to steelworkers and their families about this issue. It 
is estimated that 10,000 steelworkers have already lost their jobs. The 
Independent Steelworkers predict job losses of as many as 165,000 if 
steel dumping is not stopped.
  It is time for the Senate to take action. All eyes are on us.
  The question is, Will we respond to this crisis?
  Adopting this bill tells our steel industry, our steelworkers, and 
the world that we support our industry, we support trade laws, and we 
will simply not tolerate dumping or subsidization.
  The bill is tough. It directs the President to impose quotas, tariff 
surcharges, or negotiate enforceable voluntary export restraint 
agreements in order to ensure that the volume of imported steel 
products during any month does not exceed the average volume imported 
from the 3-month period preceding July 1997.
  I am a free trader. I believe free trade, though, does not exist 
without fair trade. Free trade does not mean free to dump, free to 
subsidize, free to distort the market. However, that is exactly what is 
happening today.
  A strong and healthy domestic steel industry is vital to our Nation 
and vital to our national defense. Let us resolve today to debate and 
then pass H.R. 975. The House has already done so. I believe it is in 
our interest and the interest of the country to do so.
  I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his 
leadership, as well as Senator Rockefeller and the other Members who 
have worked so hard on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, over the past 18 months there has been a 
surge of steel imports. That surge has severely and adversely impacted 
the U.S. steel industry.
  This crisis needs to be addressed and the effects of illegal dumping 
dealt with in a fair and equitable way.
  I think the administration deserves credit for the series of steps, 
including bilateral agreements and vigorous enforcement of existing 
trade laws, that have greatly improved the steel situation in this 
country. Imports, as a result, are now down to below precrisis levels.

[[Page S7403]]

  I support strong action to enforce our trade laws. I believe that 
trade policy should be by rule of law, not by anarchy, and that with 
such strong rule of law enforcement we will be able to assure U.S. 
workers that they are not hurt by illegal import surges.
  However, I oppose this legislation because it has the potential of 
doing great damage to our economy and to the international trading 
system. It would violate our WTO commitments, thereby putting at risk 
many of the gains we have made in our economy in recent years. It would 
focus on a specific problem of the past but do nothing to deal with the 
next challenge to the rule of law in our trade policy.
  I believe that the most at-risk sector of our economy would be 
agriculture. Agriculture today enjoys the biggest trade surplus of any 
sector of our economy. Other countries will see this as an opportunity 
to retaliate against U.S. industry, wiping out export markets that our 
agriculture producers have achieved.
  We must address the problems of the steel industry in a way that does 
not violate our international agreements. I believe this can best be 
accomplished by making adjustments to section 201 of the Trade Act of 
1974, which is designed to deal with import surges.
  Last week, the Senate Finance Committee passed out legislation which 
modifies section 201 so that it is more responsive to import surges. 
This legislation is a good first step, but more can be done.
  The specific problems of perishable agriculture should be addressed 
so that seasonality can be taken into account when determining injury 
to a domestic industry.
  We must ensure that U.S. industry has recourse to affective and 
timely relief when they are injured due to illegal import surges. If we 
cannot do this, our entire system of international trade, and the 
health of our domestic economy will be at risk.
  For this reason, I will oppose cloture at this time and ask my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I urge we deal with this problem by making our trade enforcement laws 
more effective, more able to respond to the challenges of the future, 
and not succumb to a violation of our trade agreements.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to vote for this bill but I 
can't. I want to because I think part of the steel industry has a 
legitimate case. But I can't because voting for this bill would make it 
worse than the relief they seek.
  We have GATT. We have WTO. We have NAFTA. We have access to 
accountability. However, the administration is not allowing that to go 
forward. We have to stay within the system. We have to play by the 
rules.
  The reason we are debating this is because we haven't had the 
administration firmly coming forward and saying the steel industry has 
a legitimate gripe. They do.
  I support the Finance Committee approach to it which says we are 
going to stick by the rules, and we need to enforce them vigorously.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, my understanding is we have 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 57 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask unanimous consent 3 minutes be added to each 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in the last 12 months, America has created 
1,950,000 new permanent, productive, tax-paying jobs for the future. We 
have created 7,500 jobs in every working day for the last 12 months.
  If we want to continue to benefit from being the world's greatest 
trading nation, we have to have politicians that are willing to stand 
up and fight for those principles by saying no on bills such as the 
bill before the Senate.
  Though the bill before the Senate may be well intended, the bill 
before the Senate is a job killer, a trade war starter, and it is a 
bill that will destroy 40 jobs in steel-using industries for every one 
job it saves in steel producing.
  Last year, we exported $222 billion worth of products that used 
steel; 40 jobs were created in those industries for every one job in 
steel. It is estimated that the passage of this bill would save about 
1,700 steel jobs at a cost of about $800,000 a job for the American 
consumer. But that is not counting the jobs we would lose in steel-
using industries. It is not counting the jobs we would lose because of 
retaliation from our unfair trade practice.
  If we want to create 7,500 jobs a day, we have to have the courage to 
stand up and defend the system that creates those jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to resist the siren song of well-organized 
groups that have their special interests and look at the general 
interest of America. When we are creating more jobs than the rest of 
the world combined, more jobs than in all of Europe, Japan, China, and 
every developing country in the world combined, why should we be 
attacking the very system that created those jobs?
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. ROTH. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 46 seconds.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to Senator Bond.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I point out that over the last 6 years prior 
to 1998, the steel industry experienced 6 straight years of growth in 
domestic steel shipments.
  In 1998, there is a downturn. There is a downturn because of the 
collapse in the Asian economy, because of the General Motors strike. 
That is unfortunate. We don't want to see those jobs lost.
  When you talk about illegal dumping, there are laws against illegal 
dumping. They are being enforced and they are being enforced 
effectively.
  What we are being asked to do in this bill is to put at risk the 20 
production jobs for every one steel job; 20 production jobs depending 
on using steel for the one job in the steel industry.
  That could be a disaster for our economy.
  The chairman has already pointed out the cost to the taxpayers, to 
the consumers. In my State of Missouri, workers in agriculture, in the 
airplane industry, and small businesses would suffer a loss of jobs and 
a loss of opportunity if we adopted this measure.
  I join with the chairman and the ranking member in urging we oppose 
this measure.
  Mr. President, I offer a few other points on top of the excellent 
arguments laid out by my colleagues as to why this bill is a bad idea.
  The reasons for the surge in steel imports and the decrease in 
employment in the steel industry are the result of numerous factors and 
complex conditions. There are a number of forces at work, but the 
difficult times faced by the steel industry are largely due to economic 
cycles and conditions. I believe that the industry is asking Congress 
to take action on its behalf to rectify a status caused by unfavorable 
conditions. We have a large and diverse economy, with many factors 
dependent on one another. Taking legislative action on behalf of one 
industry could have wide and profound ripple affects on may industries 
that are not for the better and would be a very unwise precedent. The 
reaction to this legislation could destroy jobs in Missouri industries 
from agriculture to airplanes and many others.
  These conditions have not been receiving the level of attention that 
they deserve in the discussion as to whether erecting trade barriers is 
the proper approach, if there is an approach, to reducing the increase 
in steel imports.
  The largest consumers of steel are automobile manufacturers and 
construction--two industries whose health is directly related to the 
health of the economy. We all are aware of the economic conditions 
facing the Asian nations, particularly facing Japan and the Southeast 
Asian Nations. This was a very sudden and dramtatic turn of economic 
fortunes. Previously, those economies had a voracious appetite for 
steel in the years proceeding their economic problems. The skylines of 
the Asian business capitals have been transformed from those of small 
towns into cosmopolitan metropolises rivaling many American cities. But 
today, the streets of Bangkok are littered with dozens of highrise 
construction

[[Page S7404]]

projects that have ground to a halt. Demand for steel overseas has 
collapsed.
  Prior to that collapse, U.S. steel manufactures were enjoying good 
times. Indeed, a decline in domestic steel shipments was witnesses in 
1998, but the decline, which was slight, came on the heels of six 
straight years of growth. The industry enjoyed good times, they 
benefited from the growth in demand, from the construction boom here 
and abroad. But economic upheaval abroad has had a major affect on 
demand, prices, productivity and profit. Capacity was moving along only 
to face an almost instanteous drop in demand. Those factors as having 
contributed to the drop in demand have been minimized. Another factor, 
the labor stoppage at General Motors last summer, has barely been 
mentioned.
  Businesses endure business cycles. I have all the confidence that the 
industry will take the steps necessary to remain competitive, but 
taking this legislative action to address the conditions of one 
industry is unwise. Those factors have been minimized as contributing 
to the decline in demand around the world. Another factor, the labor 
stoppage at General Motors last summer, cannot be underestimated for 
its impact on demand and prices.
  We are being asked to take legislative action to protect a single 
industry from conditions that are largely the result of the economy and 
their business decisions and planning. An act such as this cannot be 
taken without having severe and far reaching consequences for many 
other industries. As we have heard on the floor of the Senate, and 
their own business decisions taking legislative action that will 
benefit a single industry is a purely protectionist act.
  Mr. President, we have made a commitment in this country to advancing 
freer trade and open borders. I believe it is in the best interest of 
our country and in the best interests of future generations. Trade has 
many benefits. The competition has led to dramatic improvement in the 
efficiency and the profitability of the domestic auto industry. It has 
led to improvements in the efficient and profitability of the domestic 
steel industry. Prior to the year 1998, shipments of steel increased 
for six straight years. I believe that growth will return. The benefits 
are seen all around us in the form of more efficient industries, 
cheaper products and better made products.
  Trade also advances our standard of living. As we enjoy the benefits 
of this communications revolution, open markets will permit it to be 
prolonged. If other countries close down their markets, the avenues to 
continue to sell these products will begin to evaporate. There is no 
dispute the types of jobs that have been created because of this 
revolutions--they are high paying and highly skilled jobs, the type of 
jobs that have contributed to the continuing escalating standard of 
living in the United States.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 15 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. The pain is real, the need is real, but the answer is 
wrong. We are not voting up and down on this bill. We are voting to 
proceed. I am going to vote to proceed in the hope that between now and 
the time we vote on this bill, the administration and others understand 
there is a need for an answer. This is not the answer. I would vote 
against the bill, but I will vote to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has all time been consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; 4 minutes 25 seconds remain.
  Mr. LOTT. At the appropriate time, I will use leader time to wrap up 
debate on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the junior Senator 
from West Virginia for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will not even take that amount of 
time. Senator Gramm and Senator Nickles and others, have said vote 
against this bill. You will have a chance to vote against this bill. 
That is not what we are about today. We are voting on the motion to 
proceed to discuss an extraordinarily complex issue, the ramifications 
of which a lot of people do not know. It has been pointed out we are in 
violation of WTO. It has not been pointed out we are trying to follow 
our Trade Act, which we ourselves passed in the Congress and which was 
signed by a previous President.
  Please, this is the motion to proceed. We traditionally are fair 
about these things. This is a complex subject. Steel is only produced 
in 16 States in a major way. A lot of people have a lot to learn.
  We are not voting on the quota bill. We are voting on the motion to 
proceed to simply talk about it. We have had a very high barrier to 
reach.
  Finally, I say the crisis is not over. I repeat that. The first 4 
months of this year compared to the first 4 months of last year--last 
year being the worst year in history in terms of imports--steel imports 
were only down by 5 percent. The crisis lives. The time to vote for an 
honest discussion of the issue is now. We can do that by voting yes on 
the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to pick up where the Senator from 
West Virginia left off, and that is to make very clear what we are 
voting on today. We are not voting on a steel quota bill. We are voting 
simply to bring the issue to the floor of the Senate for open debate 
and discussion and amendment. I do not think anyone in this Chamber can 
say what has gone on in the steel industry has been good for America. I 
have heard from some of the speakers--incredibly so--that somehow or 
another this was good for American jobs; we create American jobs when 
people illegally, against our trade laws, being subsidized by foreign 
governments, dump product into this country--that somehow that is good 
for America.
  I do not think it is good for America. We have laws that are in place 
to stop that because we think it is unfair. We think that is illegal. 
So when I hear these arguments that we have to let the marketplace 
work, the fact is the marketplace is not working. The administration is 
not working in enforcing our laws. So what we are saying is, the 
Congress needs to get to work. Congress needs to get to work, to talk 
about how we can put this together.
  The Senator from Michigan talked about the bill that came out of the 
Finance Committee. That could be an amendment to this bill. It could be 
a substitute to this bill. If you want a vehicle to have a fair and 
honest debate about what our steel policy should be, what our trade 
policy should be, this is the vehicle to do it. Let's vote on the 
motion to proceed. Let's bring up this matter. It is an important 
matter, as the Senator from West Virginia said, to at least 16 States. 
It has impacted tens of thousands of workers across this country. It is 
a very serious, desperate situation for many major companies in the 
United States. All we are asking for out of this vote is to let us be 
heard on the floor of the Senate. If you do not like the solution, as 
the Senator from Delaware said--the junior Senator from Delaware said 
he does not like the solution--fine. Bring up another measure. Bring up 
an alternative. We will have a debate on that. We will have a vote on 
that, and we will work our will in the Senate to address an issue that 
needs to be addressed. That is all we are saying.

  Please, let the folks back in Akron, OH, in Pittsburgh, PA, and 
Weirton, WV, the people in the Senate care about what is going on in 
their lives. Let them know we are not deaf to the pain they are going 
through in losing their jobs. Let them know by just giving us a chance 
to debate this bill and do something about the crisis in the steel 
industry in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to use some of my leader time 
now to close debate on this issue. First, I yield a minute to the 
Senator from Idaho to comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 1 
minute.

[[Page S7405]]

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding.
  This is not an issue about steel. This is an issue about trade. The 
United States will be hosting the World Trade Organization's 
ministerial meeting in Seattle later this year. If this Senate voted 
out a quota bill at a time when we were expecting to engage the rest of 
the world in further discussion about knocking down trade barriers to 
give agriculture and other trade entities greater opportunity in the 
world market, this Senate and this Government would be sending the 
wrong message.
  I am not going to argue with the Senator from Pennsylvania. There is 
no question the steel industry has been hurt. Agriculture is being hurt 
as we speak, but we do not close our borders and turn our lights out. 
We work to build a stronger and more fair trade organization around the 
world.
  Furthermore, this act would violate our international obligations 
under the World Trade Organization and General Agreement on Trade and 
Tariffs. By closing the U.S. Steel market, we would encourage other 
countries to follow our lead and undermine the system that the United 
States has worked so hard to establish. If we are to expect other 
countries to honor their obligations under these agreements, we must do 
the same.
  Mr. President, raising barriers against steel imports will only 
provide the steel industry temporary benefits while the American 
consumers suffer long-term consequences. Products that are made from 
steel, such as cars, homes, and appliances, will cost more to produce 
and will become more expensive to consumers. For example, large U.S. 
companies, such as Cargill and Hewlett Packard, that have substantial 
business in Idaho would be adversely affected. This situation will 
cause American consumers to purchase less and put millions of American 
jobs at risk. These consequences far exceed the risks the steel 
industry is facing.
  I yield the time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, at the request of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, and others, we are going to have this vote 
today. They made the point this was an important issue to them. They 
thought there should be some discussion about it and asked for an 
opportunity to have some debate and a vote. Little did I know at the 
time it was going to be a weekly event.
  Last week it was the revolving fund loan for steel. This week it is 
the quota bill. Next week it will be something else. In fact, the 
Finance Committee has reported out something, and it is probably, of 
the three options, the only one we should be considering. But do not 
fool yourselves; this is not an inconsequential vote. Don't be saying 
we can vote for this on the motion to proceed and then we can vote 
against it later on. In order to go forward, the proponents have to get 
60 votes today but only 51 tomorrow.
  So I urge my colleagues, do not say, I'll give them a procedural 
vote. What you may be giving them is something that would be very 
dangerous, because we then could be voting on the substance itself. I 
think the consequences of such a vote that would befall America's 
economy and our trade policy would be dire, indeed. Not only would it 
increase the burden on our consumers, it would also run counter to our 
international trade agreements, and it would adversely affect our 
businesses and farmers that depend upon access to these international 
markets. There is no question this bill would undercut the economic 
growth we enjoy today. It would be starting down an extremely dangerous 
path.
  We all struggle with similar issues in our own States in one area or 
another--perhaps agriculture here, textiles there, something else 
elsewhere. But free trade has been proven, time and time again, to 
benefit America, to benefit American consumers. It is the right thing 
to do, and we should not start down the trail of passing quotas here, 
there, or somewhere else.
  I urge my colleagues, vote against cloture.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 66, H.R. 975, The Steel Import 
     Limitation Bill.
         Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, Mike DeWine, Jesse Helms, Ted 
           Stevens, Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Orin Hatch, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Robert C. Byrd, Robert Torricelli, Fritz 
           Hollings, Pat Roberts, Arlen Specter, Richard Shelby, 
           and Craig Thomas.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 975, 
an act to provide for a reduction of the volume of steel imports, and 
to establish a steel import notification and monitoring program, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--57

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
57.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee just made this remark to me. He is too modest, 
perhaps, to say it himself. He suggested that we have just taken what 
will likely be the most important vote of this session of the Congress. 
It was the first such vote we have had, I know, in my 23 years on the 
Committee on Finance--a solid affirmation of a half century, and more, 
of American trade policy.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to just thank my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, for his

[[Page S7406]]

invaluable assistance on this most important matter. I think the two of 
us believe very strongly that there will be no more important a vote 
than the one we just took. It is important from the standpoint of our 
national economy; it is important from the point of view of our steel 
industry; it is important from the standpoint of our workers. I know it 
was a very difficult vote for many people, but I want to express my 
public appreciation for their assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I voted to invoke cloture. It was a 
difficult vote. The chairman of the Finance Committee and the Senator 
from New York deserve a great deal of credit for bringing this up the 
way they did. I regret we didn't get cloture. I think the bill would 
have needed work, I must say, before it reached final passage, had 
cloture been invoked.

                          ____________________