[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 60 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4395-S4397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TRADE POLICY

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about certain trade 
policy issues that the Bush administration inherited from its 
predecessor, but which remain unresolved. I refer to the steel crisis, 
the failure to formulate a coherent trade policy with respect to China, 
and the failure to recognize that ``fast-track'' trade negotiating 
authority represents both an unwarranted diminution of the 
Constitutional authority of Congress and an invitation to our trade 
partners to accelerate their attack on the framework of fair trade.
  As I have long maintained, U.S. trade policy cannot be complacent as 
America's manufacturing plants are moved to low-wage countries, a 
phenomenon that makes it increasingly difficult for American employers 
to stay competitive and, at the same time, pay good wages and provide 
good benefits to their workers. While American workers do benefit from 
lower prices for imported products, too many have been made worse off, 
on balance, by globalization. As the columnist Michael Kelly recently 
pointed out, ``What the unionists know is that

[[Page S4396]]

globalization ultimately depends on driving manufacturing jobs out of 
the country in which they live.''
  Indeed, in many historically high-wage and efficient industries, the 
inevitable result of complacent trade policy is bankruptcy. The 
inevitable result of complacent trade policy is bankruptcy. A case in 
point is the U.S. steel industry. The steel crisis--which is the direct 
result of an unprecedented surge in imports, particularly dumped and 
subsidized imports--began in late 1997 and continues to this day. The 
surge in imports has already led 18 American steel companies--18 
companies--to declare bankruptcy. Hear them at the other end of the 
avenue. Over the past year alone, an estimated 5,000 U.S. steelworkers 
have lost their jobs.
  A great sage once said, ``Reflect upon three things and you will not 
come to sin: Know from where you came, and to where you are going, and 
before whom you are destined to give an accounting.'' Let's reflect 
again on those three things: Know from where you came, and to where you 
are going, and before whom you are destined to give an accounting. So, 
let me bring this issue a little closer to home, my home, that is. In 
1996, Weirton Steel Corporation, of Weirton, West Virginia, in the very 
tip of the northern panhandle the eighth largest integrated steel 
producer in the United States, employed 5,375 of the most skilled 
workers and managers in the world, using the most up-to-date production 
technology. That was down from a few years ago. What is it today? 
Today, in 2001, Weirton employs only 4,111 workers and managers, a loss 
of over 25 percent from 1996. Weirton just reported that its first 
quarter sales this year were down 24 percent from last year and that it 
lost $75.3 million in the first quarter. Continuation of the status quo 
in the steel market will not mean continuation of the status quo for 
Weirton Steel, for it cannot stay in business over an extended period 
of time in the face of such losses.
  Now, by Ohio Valley steel industry standards, Weirton is the lucky 
one even with such losses. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., the ninth 
largest U.S. integrated steel producer, was forced last year to declare 
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to avoid being picked apart by its 
creditors. I hope that it will soon emerge from bankruptcy with the 
help of a federally guaranteed loan.

  I could talk about the need for a section 201 investigation of 
``serious injury'' to the American steel industry. Such an 
investigation is necessary, and it is necessary now--the administration 
should not tie its decision on a 201 investigation to any other trade 
policy initiative. But, I will save that discussion for another day. 
Rather, I wish to point out that the administration is sending a 
damaging signal on its approach to the steel crisis by proposing to 
rescind $10 million from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.
  Because the demands on that program will--in all likelihood--continue 
to increase, the proposed reduction in funding represents an 
unacceptable risk of harm to an industry that is vital both to our 
national defense and the way of life of communities across this Nation.
  The emergency guarantee program was made necessary because of the 
reaction of the financial community to the onset of the steel crisis. 
With no assurance that the injurious surge in steel imports would abate 
in the near future, financial institutions were--for the most part--
unwilling to restructure steel producers' debts. Thus, Congress acted 
to provide incentives for private-sector loans to the steel industry. 
The new program was signed into law on August 17, 1999, and was 
designed to give qualified U.S. steel producers access to a $1 billion 
revolving guaranteed loan fund.
  I say, parenthetically, that I was the author of that legislation.
  Now is simply the wrong time to be considering rescissions from the 
emergency guarantee program. There are many steel companies in Chapter 
11 bankruptcy, and several of them will undoubtedly request these 
federally guaranteed loans as a key element in their restructuring 
programs.
  The steel crisis takes us right into the issue of our trade policy 
toward China. Whatever else one might say about China, it is, without 
question, an economic behemoth. Our trade deficit with China in 2000 
was nearly $84 billion. In that same year, imports from China totaled 
$100.1 billion, accounting for eight percent of total U.S. imports, 
making China the fourth largest exporter to the United States. 
Moreover, in February 2001, we imported 97 million tons of finished 
steel products from China, almost as much as the 100 million tons we 
imported from Japan!
  Even the quickest perusal of Commerce Department and International 
Trade Commission records demonstrates that China is engaged in dumping 
steel products in the United States. China has recently been found to 
be dumping steel wire rope, as well as--in preliminary determinations--
hot-rolled steel and steel concrete reinforcing bars.
  What I am trying to tell the Senate, and the administration--if the 
administration will listen, if the administration will hear--is that 
China may not intend to play the trade game by the traditional rules. 
Indeed, as we have seen in recent weeks, China does not play the 
international relations game by acceptable norms. The Weekly Standard 
opined at the height of the reconnaissance plane crisis that:

       The United States must respond in ways that directly affect 
     China's interests. . . . The Chinese believe, with good 
     reason, that the American business community has a hammerlock 
     on American policy toward China. . . .

  Let us resolve to demonstrate that we can respond effectively to any 
Chinese attempt to push the envelope--not by indulging in angry 
overreaction, but by doing whatever is reasonable and practicable and 
according to the dictates of common sense, to restore Congressional 
authority to review China's trade status on an annual basis. The 
concept of ``Permanent Normal Trade Relations'' is premised on the 
assumption of normality in a bilateral relationship, and our bilateral 
relationship with China is anything but normal.
  This brings me, now, to the issue of ``fast-track.'' The President 
wants fast track. The administration wants fast track. The 
administration says it needs this deviation from the traditional 
prerogatives of Congress in order to negotiate multilateral trade 
agreements. Let me be clear: I am not in favor of attaching myriad 
amendments to trade agreements negotiated by the President.
  I am not for having the Congress hang up on every import of every 
toothbrush or violin string or piece of cloth.
  There may be, however, a few very important items--a few--that 
Congress will need to consider in detail before proceeding to a final 
vote on a multilateral trade agreement.
  Under the Constitution, which I hold in my hand, Congress has this 
responsibility. We ought to read it. Again, I say I am not for looking 
at every comma, semicolon, colon, hyphen--every little jot and tittle 
about trade agreements. Who wants to engage themselves in debate over 
minuscule matters that may appear in a trade agreement?
  But there are some very important items, limited to three or four or 
five huge questions. We have questions we need to debate. We have 
issues we need to debate in connection with these trade matters, and we 
should debate them. Congress has a responsibility to debate them before 
Congress considers a final vote on a multilateral trade agreement. We 
have a responsibility to do that.
  Fast track? Not for me. Let's not be in all that big a hurry. We 
don't need to be in such a hurry. What it means is shut Congress out of 
the debate. Just vote up or down. The people's representatives, the 
elected representatives of the people in this country--here, in this 
body, in this Chamber--shut them out. What we want is fast track, says 
the administration.
  I say no. No fast track. Let the people speak, through their elected 
representatives, to trade agreements. I don't mind limiting it to very 
few, a handful, a half dozen questions or issues to be voted on. It is 
important that the Senate debate these matters.
  Here is an example. A key objective of many of our trading partners 
in any multilateral negotiation is to weaken U.S. antidumping, 
countervailing duty, and safeguard laws. As a matter of fact, I read 
the other day that several of the Free Trade Area of the Americas 
countries are proposing elaborate

[[Page S4397]]

changes to our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Does anyone 
seriously believe that their objective is anything less than to gut the 
effectiveness of those laws? Now, why should we not debate that? Why 
should we not be able to offer an amendment or amendments? Does anyone 
seriously believe that their objective is anything less than to gut the 
effectiveness of those laws? Does anyone seriously believe that, in any 
full negotiating round, our hemispheric trading partners will not work 
in concert with Japan, Korea, and the European Union to eviscerate the 
framework of fair trade as we know it?
  Some of the FTAA countries undoubtedly also have in mind that our 
trade laws be interpreted and applied by multilateral tribunals--in 
other words, the chapter 19 model. Under Chapter 19 of NAFTA, persons 
who, in many instances, are not even trained in U.S. law, and who have 
a strong personal or professional interest in weakening our trade laws, 
are called to interpret and apply them. The result should have been 
predictable: enforcement of those laws has been compromised. Senators 
don't have to believe me. Just read retired U.S. Court of Appeals Judge 
Malcolm Wilkey's dissent in the Canadian softwood lumber extraordinary 
challenge determination! Judge Wilkey contrasts the promises that were 
made to Congress in connection with Chapter 19--particularly that it 
would lead to no change in U.S. law--with the frequent refusal of 
foreign panelists to apply basic concepts of American administrative 
law such as the standard of review. He also raises serious questions 
about whether Chapter 19 ignores conflicts of interest on the part of 
panelists that would be disqualifying under our rules of ethics.
  My conclusion from all of this is simple. If ``trade negotiating 
authority,'' to use the administration's term for fast-track, means 
that Congress agrees to surrender its responsibility to thoroughly 
evaluate--and refine, if necessary--those provisions of proposed 
international agreements that might necessitate changes to our trade 
laws and regulations, I want nothing of it.
  In considering these three issues--the steel crisis, trade with 
China, and fast-track--I am motivated by a deep and abiding concern for 
the hardworking men and women of my country, America. They have been 
hammered by deindustrialization and disinvestment. Both the public 
sector and the private sector are to blame for these trends, as well as 
politicians, which have been long in the making. But there is one thing 
we can say with certainty: the trade liberalization model that has been 
relied upon by recent administrations--Democratic and Republican--does 
not help. It limits the ability of the United States to use import 
restrictions to ensure fair trade in our markets while giving foreign 
countries such as China virtually a free hand in excluding selected 
U.S. exports from their markets. What is fair about that? What is free 
about that? That isn't free trade. In light of the current situation in 
many of our basic industries, this imbalance can no longer be 
tolerated.
  We must remember from whence we came. I happen to go back to the 
hills and the hollows and the Mountain State of West Virginia, which 
was born during the Civil War, to renew my love, to renew my 
recollection, and to reinvigorate my understanding of what the people 
deserve and what the people want.
  We must remember from whence we came and before whom we are destined 
to give an accounting. So remember from whence we came, remember where 
we are going, and remember before whom we must give an accounting.
  We must stand up for the working men and women of America, the people 
who have not forgotten God's edict that he delivered when he drove Adam 
and Eve from the Garden of Eden, to earn thy bread by the sweat of thy 
brow. Those are the people we must remember.
  We must stand up for them and stand against any initiative that would 
undermine the framework of ``fair trade.'' We must not allow anyone in 
the name of ``free trade'' or anyone in the name of ``fast track'' to 
destroy the way of life of communities across the Nation.
  No, Mr. President, we don't need fast track. We need to live by this 
Constitution which I hold in my hand. We swear an oath in this Senate 
to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. Let's watch the enemies in our midst. They may be us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________