[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12557-S12558]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1724. A bill to modify the standards for responding to import 
surges under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, to establish 
mechanisms for agricultural import monitoring and the prevention of 
circumvention of United States trade laws, and to strengthen the 
enforcement of United States trade remedy laws; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                the agriculture import surge relief act

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture 
Import Surge Relief Act of 1999.
  This year's harvest is nearly over in Montana and the rest of the 
country. But instead of breathing a sigh of relief after a summer of 
hard work, many of our farmers are holding their breath, wondering 
whether they will even be able to farm next year. With prices at a 50-
year low, global oversupply and unpredictable surges in imports, our 
rural communities continue to face crisis.
  We in the Senate have been working hard to address this triad of 
problems. Today, I would like to offer a partial solution to the trade 
angle--the Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act. This Act addresses 
surges in agricultural imports.
  For a variety of reasons, including overcapacity overseas, misaligned 
exchanges rates, and low international commodity prices, we may find a 
sudden, sharp, and unpredictable increase in import levels of 
particular agricultural product. This type of sudden rise in import 
levels damage the heart of our economy and our farm communities.
  We must do a better job of monitoring these surges so that we see 
them as soon as they start. And we must do a better and faster job of 
responding to these surges to provide relief to our producers before 
they go out of business.
  The Agriculture Import Surge Relief Act targets these goals by making 
several critical improvements in Section 201 of U.S. trade law.
  Section 201 is the so-called ``safeguard'' provision that is designed 
to prevent serious disruption of our domestic industry because of 
imports. It is also the very provision that was used by U.S. lamb 
producers earlier this year to find relief from a surge in lamb imports 
from Australia and New Zealand. I am pleased that U.S. lamb producers 
prevailed; but it cost them dearly--in both time and money. Unlike 
other industries, agriculture is extraordinarily time sensitive. A 
year-long case can find many producers driven out of business before it 
ends.
  It is also important to note that Section 201 is not a protectionist 
measure. It is a short-term mechanism used to get an ``injured'' 
American industry back on its feet and competing again. I consider 
Section 201 as a ``breathing room'' provision. That is, it gives 
temporary relief to a domestic industry by providing for a short-term 
restraint on imports that have surged into the United States.
  My bill proposes four changes to the way we anticipate and respond to 
surges in agriculture.
  First, the Act amends Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to be more 
responsive to import surges--for any industry.
  Like the Import Surge Relief Act I introduced last May, co-sponsored 
by

[[Page S12558]]

Senator Levin, this bill eases Section 201's overly strict injury 
standard. No longer will American industry have to comply with a 
standard higher than that of our international trading partners. They 
will simply have to prove an increase in imports over a short period of 
time which cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic 
market.
  The Act also speeds up the process for addressing import surges. 
Recently, I hosted a town hall meeting in Kalispell, Montana. Many 
agriculture leaders expressed their concern that the process of 
responding to surges is just too long. The same message came through 
loud and clear last week when a record number of us in the Congress 
testified before the International Trade Commission regarding imported 
Canadian cattle. Relief that is too late can mean the devastation of an 
industry--and the devastation of Rural America.
  My bill would cut the time in half for this process and give the ITC 
Commissioners the ability to make decisions on an expedited basis.
  It will also bring credibility to the final decision-making process. 
As we learned in the lamb case, the President has the ultimate 
decision-making authority. This means he can accept, change or reject 
recommendations from the International Trade Commission based on 
information above and beyond the evidence presented during the 
laborious hearings.
  My bill requires that the President, in deciding whether to take 
action, focus more than he has in the past on the beneficial impact of 
a remedy, rather than on the negative impact on other industries. And 
in do so, he must make provisional relief available on an urgent basis.
  Second, the Act establishes an Agricultural Products Import 
Monitoring and Enforcement Program. The program shall: Promote and 
defend US policy with respect to import safeguards and countervailing 
or antidumping duty actions if challenged in the World Trade 
Organization, identify foreign trade-distorting measures, and develop 
policies and responsive actions to address such measures.
  Finally, the bill provides an early warning system. We simply cannot 
wait until we see that an American industry is devastated. We must be 
able to project ahead, understand the threats facing an industry, and 
then consider quickly what type of action to take, if any.
  My bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to monitor imports and 
report its findings on a quarterly basis until 2005. This is absolutely 
critical to take rapid action.
  Finally, with the next round of the World Trade Organization talks 
approaching, the expiration of the Farm Bill, and uncertainties in 
global financial markets, anything can happen. U.S. industry, and our 
farm communities, however, should not bear the brunt.
  The Agricultural Import Surge Relief Act will begin to bring 
stability and predictability back to the system. I urge my colleagues 
to support this proposal.

                          ____________________